Conversation
Also includes proposed procedures for report and enforcement of the CoC. Based on the following Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cj9trFifGNqyNtpyEO9FfJLlmDGTbUy5enRAA9rTyH4/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.214z66dv3mpo.
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
effigies
left a comment
effigies
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall LGTM. One suggestion, though I'm not going to argue it further if others disagree.
|
Apologies, this has taken me an inexcusably long time to return to. I addressed comments/suggestions made by @effigies above (thanks!). @bids-standard/steering and @bids-standard/maintainers : any further comments? The one point that I think still needs to be addressed, before this can be enacted is the text regarding previous members of the steering group also being available to contact. On the one hand, I think that having previous steering group members available can be helpful. On the other hand, I don't want to assume that everyone who has been on SG is now willing to serve in this capacity. But: I also think that adding/removing names from this document is potentially an issue as well. So, it would be good if we had some way to point to people who are interested in serving in this capacity on some other page in a similar way to how we currently point to maintainers and SG in the section titled "General BIDS reporting procedure". However, I am not sure how we should do that. A separate section for "CoC Working Group" adjacent to these contact pages may be a potential way to go. |
|
I think the response group is well-defined (3 people, at least one steering and one maintainer, unless conflicts of interest make this impossible), but the actions to be taken seem to flip between "working" and response groups, and it's a bit hard to follow. Who is the working group? Is it just a synonym for response group, or does it mean the set of contactable people, i.e., current steering, current maintainers, and past steering who volunteer to remain in it? |
|
Good point! I have clarified in the last change-set that "Working group" is maintainers + steering and "response group" is a smaller sub-set to evaluate a particular report. I think we'd also need to add some words around here |
effigies
left a comment
effigies
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor cleanups.
The status of past steering members in the CoC WG is still a little unclear by my reading. I think it might make sense to formalize the CoC WG as consisting of: Current steering, maintainers, and past steering members who consent to remain on the WG. I think those past members should either be both potential initial contacts and response group candidates or else be neither.
Informally, I would suggest we refrain from involving past SG members unless they are the point of contact chosen by the reporter or there are difficulties pulling together a response group from active steering/maintainers.
To that effect, I think adding a section on the CoC WG to https://bids.neuroimaging.io/collaboration/governance.html would make sense. Until that's done, I think listing ex-steering group here is fine.
|
|
||
| When you make a report to a member of the Code of Conduct working group, they will gather information about the incident according to the BIDS Procedure For Incident Response. | ||
|
|
||
| After an incident responder takes the report, they will immediately establish a 3 person Code of Conduct Response Group with at least 1 (past or present) BIDS steering group members and 1 BIDS maintainer, unless there is a conflict of interest, in which case any non-interested parties will be contacted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reads oddly to me. Maybe this?
| After an incident responder takes the report, they will immediately establish a 3 person Code of Conduct Response Group with at least 1 (past or present) BIDS steering group members and 1 BIDS maintainer, unless there is a conflict of interest, in which case any non-interested parties will be contacted. | |
| After an incident responder takes the report, they will immediately establish a 3 person Code of Conduct Response Group with at least 1 (past or present) BIDS steering group members and 1 BIDS maintainer, unless conflicts of interest prevent such an arrangement, in which case any disinterested party may be recruited. |
|
|
||
| #### Following up with reporters | ||
|
|
||
| Within one week of an incident report, a member of the response group, will follow up with the person who made the report and provided their contact information. The follow up may include: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Within one week of an incident report, a member of the response group, will follow up with the person who made the report and provided their contact information. The follow up may include: | |
| Within one week of an incident report, a member of the response group will follow up with the reporter. The follow up may include: |
|
|
||
| #### Conflict of Interest | ||
|
|
||
| If an member of the response group has a conflict of interest for a report, they will recuse themselves from the discussion and handling of the incident. The incident documentation will not be available to them, and they will excuse themselves from any conversations involving handling the incident. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| If an member of the response group has a conflict of interest for a report, they will recuse themselves from the discussion and handling of the incident. The incident documentation will not be available to them, and they will excuse themselves from any conversations involving handling the incident. | |
| If a member of the working group has a conflict of interest for a report, they will recuse themselves from the discussion and handling of the incident. The incident documentation will not be available to them, and they will excuse themselves from any conversations involving handling the incident. |
|
|
||
| The BIDS CoC Working Group will be required to respond back with whether they accept the recommended response to the report. If they disagree with the recommended response, they should provide a detailed response or additional context as to why they disagree. The Working Group is encouraged to respond within a week. | ||
|
|
||
| In cases where the Working Group disagrees on the suggested resolution for a report, the BIDS Code of Conduct work group may choose to notify the BIDS steering group. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The working group includes the steering group.
|
|
||
| ### Follow up with the reported person | ||
|
|
||
| The BIDS Code of Conduct work group will work with online community administrators/moderators to draft a response to the reported person. The email should contain: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The BIDS Code of Conduct work group will work with online community administrators/moderators to draft a response to the reported person. The email should contain: | |
| The BIDS Code of Conduct response group will work with online community administrators/moderators to draft a response to the reported person. The email should contain: |
|
|
||
| ### Decide further responses | ||
|
|
||
| If the reported person provides additional context, the BIDS Code of Conduct work group may need to re-evaluate the behavioral modification plan and consequences. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| If the reported person provides additional context, the BIDS Code of Conduct work group may need to re-evaluate the behavioral modification plan and consequences. | |
| If the reported person provides additional context, the BIDS Code of Conduct response group may need to re-evaluate the behavioral modification plan and consequences. |
|
|
||
| ### Follow up with the reporter | ||
|
|
||
| A person who makes a report should receive a follow-up email stating what action was taken in response to the report. If the work group decided no response was needed, they should provide an email explaining why it was not a Code of Conduct violation. Reports that are determined not to have been made in good faith may receive no response. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| A person who makes a report should receive a follow-up email stating what action was taken in response to the report. If the work group decided no response was needed, they should provide an email explaining why it was not a Code of Conduct violation. Reports that are determined not to have been made in good faith may receive no response. | |
| A person who makes a report should receive a follow-up email stating what action was taken in response to the report. If the response group decided no response was needed, they should provide an email explaining why it was not a Code of Conduct violation. Reports that are determined not to have been made in good faith may receive no response. |
2 participants
Also includes proposed procedures for report and enforcement of the CoC.
Based on the following Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cj9trFifGNqyNtpyEO9FfJLlmDGTbUy5enRAA9rTyH4/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.214z66dv3mpo.
As this still includes portions that need to be filled out and some issues that need to be ironed out (e.g., retention of records about enforcement actions), this is still considered a draft.