DEI policy for Flock location

misc commented

2024-02-19 18:12:03 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

This ticket is here to keep track around the work for the proposal on https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/flock-location-and-dei-policy/102686

(that's the ticket promised on https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/2024-02-15-dei-team-meeting-summary/105750 and during FOSDEM)

Plan so far:

work with @rowright and sarah-thornton on a draft (based on existing draft)
find a proper approval process (eg, some kind of RACI grid, I think)
decide the process for additions

This ticket is here to keep track around the work for the proposal on https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/flock-location-and-dei-policy/102686 (that's the ticket promised on https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/2024-02-15-dei-team-meeting-summary/105750 and during FOSDEM) Plan so far: - work with @rowright and sarah-thornton on a draft (based on existing draft) - find a proper approval process (eg, some kind of RACI grid, I think) - decide the process for additions

justwheel commented

2024-02-26 13:44:25 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

@misc @sarah.annie.thornton @rowright Hi folks, checking in on the progress on this ticket ahead of this Thursday's meeting. Do you think we are on track to have a first draft of the policy to discuss at this week's meeting, or should we postpone it for the next meeting?

justwheel commented

2024-02-26 15:59:40 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

assigned to @rowright, @sarah.annie.thornton, and @misc

misc commented

2024-02-29 13:23:41 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

I would vote postpone for now, we had no time to discuss in last meeting, nor time to schedule a discussion yet.

justwheel commented

2024-02-29 14:06:26 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Discussed in 2024-02-29 meeting.

@misc agreed to postpone this ticket from the meeting agenda until a draft is ready. Using official DEI Team channels like Discourse, this GitLab issue, and Matrix are encouraged to make sure discussion happens in places that are visible to DEI Team members across our different DEI Communities.

Once a draft is ready or more feedback from the team is needed, we will put this back on the meeting agenda. for now, I am bumping it to %"2024 Q2 Team Goals".

_Discussed in [2024-02-29 meeting](https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-02-29/diversity.2024-02-29-13.02.html)_. --- @misc agreed to postpone this ticket from the meeting agenda until a draft is ready. Using official DEI Team channels like Discourse, this GitLab issue, and Matrix are encouraged to make sure discussion happens in places that are visible to DEI Team members across our different DEI Communities. Once a draft is ready or more feedback from the team is needed, we will put this back on the meeting agenda. for now, I am bumping it to %"2024 Q2 Team Goals".

justwheel commented

2024-02-29 14:06:48 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

changed due date to June 30, 2024

justwheel commented

2024-02-29 14:06:59 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

changed health status to needs attention

changed health status to **needs attention**

misc commented

2024-03-11 14:20:08 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

@sarah.annie.thornton @rowright so, has one of you some guidance for a meeting time that would be suitable ? I can't use my usual trick of "looking at people calendar", so best way is to ask.

justwheel commented

2024-04-09 12:53:45 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

I know there is a timezone spread of about 8-9 hours among all of you… @jonatoni and I were prepping the agenda for this week's meeting, and we thought that we could have a team discussion on this ticket in our upcoming meeting this Thursday. Maybe we can lean in to help unstick this, because it would be useful to have and the DEI Team is equipped to champion this policy.

misc commented

2024-04-10 21:19:01 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

I was planning on just doing it alone if no one answer. Worst case, people do not like the tools/wording/etc and rewrite later. As for tomorrow meeting, I will try to be here, but as I am on out of office this week, I may forget about it (like, I try to not look my work phone and calendar during my vacation).

misc commented

2024-05-17 20:41:21 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

So I wrote a draft proposal (just in time for IDAHOT) :
https://gitlab.com/misc/fedora-dei-docs/-/tree/dei_proposal/modules/ROOT/pages/policy?ref_type=heads

(a proposal for proposing, a proposal for applying)

It likely requires some proofreading as I just completed my existing draft from 3 weeks ago. I may have forgot something as well, and I also didn't verify the asciidoc rendering (so that's why this is not yet a MR).

So I wrote a draft proposal (just in time for IDAHOT) : https://gitlab.com/misc/fedora-dei-docs/-/tree/dei_proposal/modules/ROOT/pages/policy?ref_type=heads (a proposal for proposing, a proposal for applying) It likely requires some proofreading as I just completed my existing draft from 3 weeks ago. I may have forgot something as well, and I also didn't verify the asciidoc rendering (so that's why this is not yet a MR).

justwheel commented

2024-06-06 13:31:48 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Discussed in 2024-06-06 meeting.

We did some review on the existing policy draft. Here is my feedback from the review:

Policy doc

Non-goals: The first paragraph about travels and passports is confusing to me as written. I think I understand the intention about difficulties with visas, but could we state this in a different way, or be more specific to what we are not trying to do?
The doc describes a process to submit proposals for Flock location, but we do not currently have a way for the community to propose a location for Flock.
The doc says it only applies to events with a bidding process, but the only thing we have like that today is Flock. Could we just specifically make this about Flock to avoid confusion on what this policy does or does not cover?
I like the criteria evaluation as principles, but it does not describe the actual harmful laws, which is what I hoped for (e.g. laws that criminalize same-sex unions or target transgender people). I would like more explicit guidance on examples that we know are unacceptable.

Policy process change doc

I am unsure about creating a new policy change process for a single policy. If we want to create this as a policy, we likely need to target this as a Council policy, which has a more established process for deciding and implementing project policy, as well as amending policy. I am concerned that the maintenance burden on the DEI Team for this policy is more than we are currently equipped to handle.

Semantics

Do not use periods for DEI (i.e. write DEI and not D.E.I.). We received feedback from screen-reader users that this is not actually helpful and it is better to use all caps without the periods.

_Discussed in 2024-06-06 meeting_. --- We did some review on the [existing policy draft](https://gitlab.com/misc/fedora-dei-docs/-/tree/dei_proposal/modules/ROOT/pages/policy?ref_type=heads). Here is my feedback from the review: ### Policy doc - **Non-goals**: The first paragraph about travels and passports is confusing to me as written. I think I understand the intention about difficulties with visas, but could we state this in a different way, or be more specific to what we are not trying to do? - The doc describes a process to submit proposals for Flock location, but we do not currently have a way for the community to propose a location for Flock. - The doc says it only applies to events with a bidding process, but the only thing we have like that today is Flock. Could we just specifically make this about Flock to avoid confusion on what this policy does or does not cover? - I like the criteria evaluation as principles, but it does not describe the actual harmful laws, which is what I hoped for (e.g. laws that criminalize same-sex unions or target transgender people). I would like more explicit guidance on examples that we know are unacceptable. ### Policy process change doc - I am unsure about creating a new policy change process for a single policy. If we want to create this as a policy, we likely need to target this as a Council policy, which has a more established process for deciding and implementing project policy, as well as amending policy. I am concerned that the maintenance burden on the DEI Team for this policy is more than we are currently equipped to handle. ### Semantics - Do not use periods for DEI (i.e. write `DEI` and not `D.E.I.`). We received feedback from screen-reader users that this is not actually helpful and it is better to use all caps without the periods.

justwheel commented

2024-06-06 13:34:55 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

I think the Fedora CoC section, Our Standards, is a great example of what I am looking for.

I think the Fedora CoC section, [Our Standards](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/#_our_standards), is a great example of what I am looking for.

MoralCode commented

2024-06-06 13:39:07 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Yeah I think this hits on the areas I had feedback/questions on.

In the meeting we mentioned Texas as an example of a location that communities have expressed issues with - It seems like trying to cover all possible examples in this proposal isn't the goal (rather to go for the lowest hanging fruit first). Maybe Texas specifically isn't something that would fall under this policy in this first draft, but if so it may be useful to have this be an anti-example for this version since its not super clear to me whether Texas's abortion laws would be considered to prevent someone from attending FLOCK. It seems to me like the abortion laws may be more of a "i disagree with this politically and want to boycott it" rather than "this is not inclusive and part of the community cannot attend".

I guess building on that, having a definition (or like justin suggested, positive and negative examples) of "discriminatory law" may be helpful

Yeah I think this hits on the areas I had feedback/questions on. In the meeting we mentioned Texas as an example of a location that communities have expressed issues with - It seems like trying to cover all possible examples in this proposal isn't the goal (rather to go for the lowest hanging fruit first). Maybe Texas specifically isn't something that would fall under this policy in this first draft, but if so it may be useful to have this be an anti-example for this version since its not super clear to me whether Texas's abortion laws would be considered to prevent someone from attending FLOCK. It seems to me like the abortion laws may be more of a "i disagree with this politically and want to boycott it" rather than "this is not inclusive and part of the community cannot attend". I guess building on that, having a definition (or like justin suggested, positive and negative examples) of "discriminatory law" may be helpful

MoralCode commented

2024-06-06 13:53:08 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

based on the feedback discussed in the meeting about my comments above:

It sounds like Texas is something that should be included in the list of positive examples as it could make a portion of the community (people who are pregnant) not want to attend flock. Apologies for making assumptions there.

Would the "we hosted an event somewhere that banned abortion, but no pregnant people attended so it turned out to be a non-issue" scenario be good to write into the policy? or is that something that would be already covered by the existing built-in flexibility afforded to the council (.etc) in this policy?

based on the feedback discussed in the meeting about my comments above: It sounds like Texas is something that should be included in the list of positive examples as it could make a portion of the community (people who are pregnant) not want to attend flock. Apologies for making assumptions there. Would the "we hosted an event somewhere that banned abortion, but no pregnant people attended so it turned out to be a non-issue" scenario be good to write into the policy? or is that something that would be already covered by the existing built-in flexibility afforded to the council (.etc) in this policy?

misc commented

2024-06-06 14:18:28 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

So, for @jwf comment, on travel/visa, it could be removed. My idea is to tell to people "this is a impossible problem to solve with this policy as it is written" (or at least, I think so, because visas is a mess). But maybe the policy is not the place for that comment. I will try to change the wording.

Lack of process for flock location is indeed a problem. I guess I can try to be vague for now.

As for "event with a bidding policy", that's because I am a old fart and I remember when flock was called fudcon and because I dislike out of date doc, so I try to not hardcode names for future proofing. But I can add a clarification saying "flock, fudcon for example" to clarify.

As for the laws, that's a 2nd step. But this should be clarified, I guess adding some clearer explanation on the placeholder would help. Or a easy one (like the one on LGBT propaganda in Russia, which was the reason why I pushed that policy)

I will fix the D.E.I in the next push

And for a example, I guess I need a different one than cats discrimination (I tried to make a light funny one as example and to see if anything would be missing to the "format of a rule", but I can also be depressing and sad).

So, for @jwf comment, on travel/visa, it could be removed. My idea is to tell to people "this is a impossible problem to solve with this policy as it is written" (or at least, I think so, because visas is a mess). But maybe the policy is not the place for that comment. I will try to change the wording. Lack of process for flock location is indeed a problem. I guess I can try to be vague for now. As for "event with a bidding policy", that's because I am a old fart and I remember when flock was called fudcon and because I dislike out of date doc, so I try to not hardcode names for future proofing. But I can add a clarification saying "flock, fudcon for example" to clarify. As for the laws, that's a 2nd step. But this should be clarified, I guess adding some clearer explanation on the placeholder would help. Or a easy one (like the one on LGBT propaganda in Russia, which was the reason why I pushed that policy) I will fix the D.E.I in the next push And for a example, I guess I need a different one than cats discrimination (I tried to make a light funny one as example and to see if anything would be missing to the "format of a rule", but I can also be depressing and sad).

misc commented

2024-06-06 14:52:10 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

to answer @MoralCode , I guess I need to give more examples (cause people are not going to read the 103 post of the initial discussion and the subsequent thread and gitlab issue and matrix chat and recording of real life discussion, shockingly :p ).

I think the best way to achieve that would be to have a document that explain the why/how in more details, but that need to be outside of the policy itself. Maybe some slide deck or some presentation, because I assume council will face the same issue. I will try to think of how this can mesh with the idea of a communication plan.

to answer @MoralCode , I guess I need to give more examples (cause people are not going to read the 103 post of the initial discussion and the subsequent thread and gitlab issue and matrix chat and recording of real life discussion, shockingly :p ). I think the best way to achieve that would be to have a document that explain the why/how in more details, but that need to be outside of the policy itself. Maybe some slide deck or some presentation, because I assume council will face the same issue. I will try to think of how this can mesh with the idea of a communication plan.

misc commented

2024-06-06 15:57:26 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

So, rereading the document, I am wondering if we want to put the hackfest in the scope. I am trying to clarify the part that this is for Flock and not release party by adding a condition "this should be for international travel", but a hackfest involve international travel as well.

I added in the current draft (and like Yoda, I force pushed), but it can be removed.

I gave some more examples in goal, removed the dot for DEI, reworked the travel/visa one (still unsure if that's clear)

So, rereading the document, I am wondering if we want to put the hackfest in the scope. I am trying to clarify the part that this is for Flock and not release party by adding a condition "this should be for international travel", but a hackfest involve international travel as well. I added in the current draft (and like Yoda, I force pushed), but it can be removed. I gave some more examples in goal, removed the dot for DEI, reworked the travel/visa one (still unsure if that's clear)

misc commented

2024-07-03 19:37:14 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

So, just for tracking purpose of similar initiative on OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Clara%20Hobbs/diary/404413

justwheel commented

2024-07-04 13:59:23 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Discussed in 2024-07-04 meeting (A/V).

It was a quieter meeting and this was the only topic we focused on today. We reviewed the recent changes made by @misc and looked at the timeline for making this policy a reality. Here are the key takeaways:

Proposed to consolidate the two policies (event location and event location policy change policy) into a single document.
- The parts of the policy change policy that do not fit into the Council Policy Change Policy can become guidelines or recommendations within the proposed event location policy.
- This avoids the inherent implication of converting the DEI Team into a policy-making group, which as of today, we are not and do not have any official charge to do so, other than via the DEI Advisor representative to the Fedora Council. By directing this policy to the Council instead of the DEI Team, we lean into the existing structure and avoid opening a new discussion about whether the DEI Team has the authority to mandate project-wide policy.
I felt that some of the criteria evaluation could be more clear for non-native English speakers, e.g. "Hierarchy of Norms" and "Temporality" may be difficult terms to understand even for native English speakers. If we cannot think of something else, we could brainstorm in a future call.

Our goal is to revisit the policy discussion asynchronously throughout July, and aim to have a final draft ready by our next A/V meeting on Thursday, August 1st. Then, we will review and see if we are ready to propose this as a new policy to the Fedora Council.

_Discussed in 2024-07-04 meeting (A/V)_. --- It was a quieter meeting and this was the only topic we focused on today. We reviewed the recent changes made by @misc and looked at the timeline for making this policy a reality. Here are the key takeaways: * Proposed to consolidate the two policies ([event location](https://gitlab.com/misc/fedora-dei-docs/-/blob/dei_proposal/modules/ROOT/pages/policy/event-location-policy.adoc) and [event location policy change policy](https://gitlab.com/misc/fedora-dei-docs/-/blob/dei_proposal/modules/ROOT/pages/policy/event-location-policy-proposal-process.adoc)) into a single document. * The parts of the policy change policy that do not fit into the [Council Policy Change Policy](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/policy-change-policy/) can become guidelines or recommendations within the proposed event location policy. * This avoids the inherent implication of converting the DEI Team into a policy-making group, which as of today, we are not and do not have any official charge to do so, other than via the DEI Advisor representative to the Fedora Council. By directing this policy to the Council instead of the DEI Team, we lean into the existing structure and avoid opening a new discussion about whether the DEI Team has the authority to mandate project-wide policy. * I felt that some of the criteria evaluation could be more clear for non-native English speakers, e.g. "Hierarchy of Norms" and "Temporality" may be difficult terms to understand even for native English speakers. If we cannot think of something else, we could brainstorm in a future call. Our goal is to revisit the policy discussion asynchronously throughout July, and aim to have a final draft ready by our next A/V meeting on Thursday, August 1st. Then, we will review and see if we are ready to propose this as a new policy to the Fedora Council.

jonatoni commented

2024-07-18 16:07:29 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

removed due date June 30, 2024

misc commented

2024-08-01 18:36:56 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

We cancelled the meeting this morning, but I updated the document by merging the 2 documents, updating the language. I guess I should spell check it.

misc commented

2024-08-01 19:23:06 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

I built the page on https://fedorapeople.org/~misc/dei_policy/dei/policy/event-location-policy/ to show what it look like.

amsharma3 commented

2024-08-09 16:15:48 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Today at Flock, 2024 @misc and @riecatnor has conducted a wonderful workshop on the topic. It trickled many thoughts in my mind. I don't want to be conclusive here but would definitely like to suggest a checklist with scoring system in place while making a decision about Fedora event location. A checklist can have the items like LGBTQE rights, Women Rights, Healthcare support, Economical accessibility etc and based on the laws we can score these items. What other thinks about this approch?

misc commented

2024-08-22 15:00:28 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

@amsharma3 When compared to the proposed policy (with "yes/no" answers), I am not sure that the added complexity is a tradeoff worth making. Adding a scoring system will make decisions harder as people will endlessly discuss the scoring, and I am sure that we all want to avoid the uncomfortable discussion that will happen after deciding that some items are less important than others, as they are scored lower.

But people are free to propose a 2nd policy to be applied after that one, like what should be done for venue accessibility, etc.

@amsharma3 When compared to the proposed policy (with "yes/no" answers), I am not sure that the added complexity is a tradeoff worth making. Adding a scoring system will make decisions harder as people will endlessly discuss the scoring, and I am sure that we all want to avoid the uncomfortable discussion that will happen after deciding that some items are less important than others, as they are scored lower. But people are free to propose a 2nd policy to be applied after that one, like what should be done for venue accessibility, etc.

justwheel commented

2024-08-29 13:44:09 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Discussed in 2024-08-29 meeting.

We took a quick pulse check today with me, @misc, and @jonatoni in the video meeting today. The draft is ready for being proposed. The next step is to open a ticket with the Fedora Council issue tracker to propose a new policy, and to open a new Merge Request on the council-docs repository with the current policy draft. The next Council meeting is Wednesday, September 11th. This would be the ideal time to get the policy in front of the Council, especially since the Flock post-event survey concludes on Friday, September 6th. We are not far away from choosing a Flock 2025 location!

_Discussed in 2024-08-29 meeting_. --- We took a quick pulse check today with me, @misc, and @jonatoni in the video meeting today. The draft is ready for being proposed. The next step is to open a ticket with the Fedora Council issue tracker to propose a new policy, and to open a new Merge Request on the council-docs repository with the current policy draft. The next Council meeting is Wednesday, September 11th. This would be the ideal time to get the policy in front of the Council, especially since the Flock post-event survey concludes on Friday, September 6th. We are not far away from choosing a Flock 2025 location!

misc commented

2024-08-30 20:55:38 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Submitted https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/502 and https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/234

misc commented

2024-08-30 20:57:50 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

And discussion on discourse: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-tickets-ticket-502-dei-policy-for-event-location/130175

justwheel commented

2024-09-26 13:37:52 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

changed due date to October 25, 2024

justwheel commented

2024-09-26 13:38:51 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Moved from Q3 to Q4

I triaged this issue against %"2024 Q4 Team Goals" as we continue to iterate and work on this. We discussed this ticket during our meeting today, and although it was not discussed in yesterday's Council meeting due to a packed agenda, the Flock planning as it is happening now is taking the draft policy into consideration.

We will likely have more updates on this in late October.

## Moved from Q3 to Q4 I triaged this issue against %"2024 Q4 Team Goals" as we continue to iterate and work on this. We discussed this ticket during our meeting today, and although it was not discussed in yesterday's Council meeting due to a packed agenda, the Flock planning as it is happening now is taking the draft policy into consideration. We will likely have more updates on this in late October.

justwheel commented

2024-09-26 13:45:40 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

mentioned in issue #16

misc commented

2025-02-04 13:23:25 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

The ticket was planned to be discussed today for the Council hackfest 2025, but it had to be postponed to the 6th of February.

The ticket was planned to be discussed today for the [Council hackfest 2025](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council/2025_Hackfest), but it had to be postponed to the 6th of February.

misc commented

2025-02-07 15:07:11 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

So the ticket was discussed and approved.

Also, on a side note, people start to make noise for others conferences: https://social.sciences.re/@MonniauxD/113930258256760417

So the ticket was discussed and approved. Also, on a side note, people start to make noise for others conferences: https://social.sciences.re/@MonniauxD/113930258256760417

misc commented

2025-03-21 09:44:20 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Seems I was prescient with my last comment : https://boycott-ietf127.org/

jonatoni (Migrated from gitlab.com) closed this issue

2025-05-02 14:29:15 +00:00

jonatoni commented

2025-05-02 14:29:16 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

This is complete now https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/event-location-policy/ 👏 🎉 Thanks a lot @misc for the great work on this!

This is complete now https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/event-location-policy/ :clap: :tada: Thanks a lot @misc for the great work on this!

misc commented

2025-07-07 15:39:54 +00:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

mentioned in issue #56