Request for Comment: Stacks Code of Conduct (Beta) #132
Comments
|
Wow @joberding, this looks very thoroughly researched and thought out. Great work on this! |
|
Just copying over a comment I put on the corresponding forum post: The only (minor) comment I had on this pertained to the Scope section:
This might be already implicitly covered by the language, but I think that it may be a good idea to state that for people who hold an official role in the Stacks community (e.g. a channel moderator, a designated role in the SIP process, membership in a working group, employment at the Foundation, etc.), the scope broadens to all your public activities – both offline and online. The rationale is that by holding that role, you officially represent the community 24/7 for the duration of your tenure. Building on this, I think it might also be a good idea to state that violating the code of conduct may result in you being removed from that position, in addition to being temporarily or permanently banned. What do you think? |
|
I agree in part because if a person holds an official role (or holds oneself out as having an official role) within the community then they become the face of the community and can impact the opinion about the community, etc by their actions. My reservation is that it could become broad so the language needs to be precise. Also, there are a number of legal issues relevant to employment - but in principle I agree that there should be the potential for loss of position while acting as a community representative. |
|
This looks fine to me. I believe that we are all old enough and mature enough to play nice. If certain individuals cannot be respectful then there are consequences. The proposed code of conduct here seems sufficient and not over reaching or excessive. |
|
@jcnelson, I agree in part because if a person holds an official role (or holds oneself out as having an official role) within the community then they become the face of the community and can impact the opinion about the community, etc by their actions. My reservation is that it could become broad so the language needs to be precise. Also, there are a number of legal issues relevant to employment - but in principle I agree that there should be the potential for loss of position while acting as a community representative. |
|
@Cap1966 - Thanks for your comments! |
|
Reposting my comment here from the forum to add more visibility to this proposal which is much needed. First of all, thank you so much for putting this together. Your work speaks a lot of volumes when it comes to your passion within the community. A very well-thought-out proposal that is ready for implementation. This is much needed in all our social spheres (Discord, Telegram, Twitter and beyond) as we’re always having a hard time punishing bad actors in the ecosystem. Question: What’s the next action item here, how can we move it forward and implement it in our ecosystem? |
|
Thats a really really detailed write up on Stacks code of conduct! I personally find it very well written and covers all the essential aspect of the community and definitely sets the expectations going forward for community members. Just one minor thought and hopefully not find ourselves in such circumstances, Thus just wondering in the event of disagreement in the interpretation due to the above, what forms of mediation can be used to resolve the differences? The first thought I had would be "our pledge", where it will form the fundamental core values that all decision making will fallback on? Many thanks @joberding for the code of conduct write up, it's a really great initiative! |
|
The pledge could be the "oneness of humanity". There should not see each other as strangers, we are one organism. |
|
Overall I think this is a great CoC, with reasonable and well defined standards and enforcement guidelines. A few questions:
What is a "community space"? Is Twitter a "community space"? How about a local hosted meetup? It might help to be more explicit here about which spaces this code of conduct applies to. Another idea here is to simply say something like "This CoC applies to any community space that formally adopts this document as their CoC". Speaking in lawyerly terms here, this section seems to be trying to define the "jurisdiction" where this CoC is enforceable, and to me it seems like the only spaces where this CoC can apply is in spaces where the owner of the space has explicitly adopted this CoC and stated they will be enforcing it in their space. Another comment on scope, it says:
What does "official" mean in a decentralized community like Stacks? |
|
Thanks for all of the input and comments! Given the recent comments here, on the forum and elsewhere, I'll make an additional revision of the COC and post the updated version here by Monday, April 5, 2021. |
|
I like the idea of it being a part of the voting / decision making process work from @HaroldDavis3! |
|
@whoabuddy I think this is a great way to test the decision making process and ratify the COC as Jude mentioned in today's governance call |
This could be a document within policykit, it's up but I'm wondering about the process of voting that in, who are the voters and how should we approach this? I have not got the time yet to read it through and maybe translate it into policies, but I'm hoping to hear your feedback about the test instance in the advocates test server here From there you could discover writing community documents as the simplest entry point and you can get complicated with platform and constitution policies. |
|
Update: this could be passed through the consensus process of the advocates program, will be some small onboarding so people can register to vote (to prevent spam). |
@hozzjss Is this something that we could still implement? Does it make sense now? Fyi, I am setting it up for the SIP process now. |
|
@joberding It would be localized to advocates, that’s the only issue, we could open it up to everyone but we don’t have an agreed upon mechanism for that community wide thing |
|
@hozzjss I think a first step in the process could be to localize to advocates. Would that also be a helpful test of the consensus mechanism? Then we can get to the community wide mechanism. Let's talk about it in a team mtg. |
|
I’m down |
|
After spending significant time reviewing the SIP process . It appears that there is no type that fits a Stacks Code of Conduct SIP. The only thing close is Informational . However, the informational type states that it "does not require any action to be taken on the part of any user". A code of conduct most definitely requires action on the part of users by requiring conformity to the code. If I am correct, the first step is a Meta SIP to create a new type. Thoughts? Am I missing something? |
@hozzjss Are the links above still working? Wanted to take a look and see what I can do with the COC |
|
Give it like a week for the consensus flow to get ratified and do it through that with a proposal i can help with that def yo @joberding |
|
Just wanted to let everyone know who is interested in the Code of Conduct, that I am currently writing the SIP for the formalization of the Stacks Code of Conduct. I will be posting the initial draft in the Stacks Discord Web3Gov channel upon completion and will ping everyone here. Thank you for your feedback and support. |
|
Thanks for putting this together! |
|
@igorsyl This is an excellent point. After listening to the discussions on upcoming SIPs relevant to miner centralization combined with your post above - I realize that the COC can be applied much more broadly. It relates to bad actors within community groups and discussions and those acting in bad faith on the blockchain. This should be made explicit, IMO. |
|
We will open this again once changes that reflect the comments have been applied, then reopen for comment or passage through advoxDAO gov flows for exposure. |
|
@jcnelson The proposal should not be revised, it should be withdrawn altogether and the topic should become a Stacks Foundation internal matter. This is a repo is for the governance of the Stacks project, not for the governance of the Stacks Foundation. If the proposal stays here limited in scope, at some point what will happen is someone will try to increase the scope and we'll be back to spending our time and energy on this argument again. The proposal needs to be withdrawn completely. |
I think where people get concerned is less around the expected behavior, and more around who enforces it and how. Just as there are expectations around personal behavior, there's an expectation that protocols/networks themselves remain neutral -- if only to prevent "in groups" excessively bullying "out groups" through perceived CoC violations. In other words,
My attempt to guide this conversation into something more productive (imo, at least) used Stacks Foundation as the vehicle for limiting that, but that was just an idea. I don't know if SF related things would extend to, say, github core discussions. Perhaps by way of grants? No idea. I understand the sentiment and successful communities tend to need a CoC of some sort in order to scale.
@john-neoswap Request for Comments generate comments. That's their entire point. STOP. You've made your point already 10 times. |
|
@alexrudloff Okay, I support keeping the conversation here as long as the proposal is also amended to say, "This Code of Conduct pertains to the Stacks Foundation only. No attempt will ever be made to apply these ideas to the broader ecosystem, and no attempt to increase the scope of this code of conduct will ever be made." |
|
Let's go back to the reason for this proposal. Scroll to the top of the page from February 2021. It reads, Problem What's the proof that this is a problem? The burden of proof is on EVERYONE who supports an "official" code of conduct.
Then explain why existing means of dealing with such problems are insufficient. Until and unless the supporters of this proposal can prove that an official code of conduct for the Stacks community that has been reviewed or voted upon by the community at large is a problem so significant that it requires such a drastic, highly unpopular, dangerous tool, then this proposal is DOA. |
|
I appreciate the effort of this SIP but am against it because it doesn’t solve a problem and introduces new red tape. More importantly it has turned off a lot of people in the community, and is negatively impacting the perception of the ecosystem that so many of us are investing time and money to build. Pls remove this distraction from Github ASAP. Thx |
|
I think enough community members have voiced concerns in this thread that the first step should be for the Stacks Foundation to define its own code of conduct for community events, online discussions, etc. And I agree that is not a SIP-level thing. The Foundation can work with the community members who are interested in this to produce that doc. It'd also give some real data points to how the CoC was practically useful, e.g., the community members who benefitted from it while participating in events/discussions that followed the CoC can then report back and share their experience. Did it make any difference at all? In what practical situations was it useful or harmful? We should be able to collect data about these questions. Until Step 1 is done, and some real data around the benefits (or harms) of a CoC is collected, I think further discussions on this SIP are moot. Let's take baby steps first! I also think discussions are generally healthy, so close as spam seems like one extreme end of the spectrum to me. However, I do believe that we should be careful about how much time/energy gets sucked into these things. Generally speaking, I'd love to see this much engagement and discussion around other SIPs or topics like miner decentralization, faster L1 speeds, etc. EDIT: updated some language to make it more clear. |
|
I think there is enough evidence... Then please provide it. Please include the following:
Then explain why existing means of dealing with such problems are insufficient. |
|
@RagnarLifthrasir I meant the other way around i.e., enough community members have voiced concerns that CoC is not needed that we should not proceed here and instead as first step the Foundation should work on a CoC for Foundation related things. I'm not suggesting here that there is enough evidence that a CoC is needed (I haven't seen any incidents). (I also edited the earlier comment to make things more clear.) |
|
Thanks for clarifying @muneeb-ali. However, if enough community members have voiced concerns that a CoC is unnecessary, why should the Foundation work on a CoC for Foundation-related things? The Foundation needs to first convincingly prove that a problem exists. Until a problem is proven, solutions aren't needed. |
|
The fundamental confusions in this entire discussion boil down to these two false ideas:
I read Muneeb's statement as impliedly saying "if they so wish" -- i.e., "the Foundation should work on a CoC if they so wish" |
|
On a different note, if we were to ask people active in Foundation-related things, they will say the biggest problem the Foundation faces is centralization. Therefore, the Foundation should first focus on decentralizing itself. I've suggested splitting it into three entities:
Then ideally, these three entities each become their own DAO. Isn't this the point of Stacks? |
The Foundation is the central hub of all things Stacks. You can't disentangle the Foundation from the "community." The core problem with the Foundation is centralization. Please look at my comment above on my suggestions for decentralizing it. |
Excellent point, @RagnarLifthrasir. Agreed. #Decentralize |
|
@muneeb-ali The Stacks Foundation has already had their lawyers write a code of conduct, and CoCs are also in place in the Github repos. Since their place of operation is in New York, it is likely a legal requirement. As a private entity, they of course have the right to unilaterally set their own rules. @RagnarLifthrasir questions whether it is a problem that a Code of Conduct has not "been reviewed or voted upon by the community at large." From a perspective of decentralization of power, it is preferable to have a broad participatory process behind a CoD rather than having it imposed by a central entity. The Stacks community space on Discord is already moderated, with many members having moderator (CM) privileges. For several years, drafts of the proposal in this RfC have been in beta testing in the Stacks community discord as the de facto Code of Conduct guiding the moderators. The world has not come to an end. For those who are opposed to having such a governance structure, we could as an experiment suspend all community moderation for a while to see how it works out. This would involve opening up the community space for a free-for-all with no rules, no moderation, and no bans. I'd be delighted to do my part in exploring where that may take us. Edit: fix single letter typo. |
Then a top-down CoC isn't needed @njordhov |
|
The fundamental issue isn't a certain version or scope of a CoC. Then each small community can decide FOR THEMSELVES how they want to be governed, rather than a small group of people deciding for the millions of Stacks users. |
|
The correct approach is opt-in, bottom-up, where people and organizations choose values for themselves and who they want or do not want to work with. Rather than a small group of native-Engish speakers living in the US deciding how to govern Stacks people worldwide, imagine tens, even hundreds, of Stacks communities deciding for themselves. You'd have communities that reflect the interests and values of different geographical regions, religions, political leanings, gender, native language, tech and financial goals, etc. Decentralization = Empowered diversity of people and thought. Let's avoid Western hegemony. And centralized power in general. |
|
Thank you everyone for all your feedback. I have never seen this much activity or interest in this code of conduct which has been in existence since 2021 and is available in the moderators Read Me on the Stacks Discord First, I would like to clear up some confusion relative to this version that you have all been commenting on. This document is not a SIP. It is an RFC created for community input. It is a draft meant for revision. This draft was created based on input from the community in 2021. Since then, there have been many discussions and feedback sessions in the governance working group, in other community forums, and with individuals. This issue has been maintained in this repo to continuously gather feedback from the community. The original purpose of this CoC This Coc was created for the Stacks Discord and Telegram communities. It has been worded broadly to allow for community discussion and feedback. Why a SIP? The reason that a CoC is being put forward to become a SIP is that there has never been a formally recognized CoC . The SIP process enables the community to be actively involved in governance to oppose, reject and come to a consensus about proposals that are introduced by community members. This is not a top-down CoC: I have been a Stacks community member since 2019 and am the primary author of this CoC. I am a self-employed independent business owner. I have never been employed by the Stacks foundation although I have received a grant. In fact, I have directly opposed the Foundation on a number of issues on behalf of the community. Saying this is a top-down CoC has absolutely zero substance and is laughable. This is a community-based CoC. Everyone has a say in this CoC. It is up to the community to decide. Or would you prefer one that the Foundation's lawyers draft up, because that is essentially what you are driving this toward as the ultimate end goal. |
@joberding It's statements like the above that get everyone worked up. If you now are saying the above is no longer your position, and the whole point of this is just for Foundation-controlled discord and telegram spaces, then I don't think any of us really care all that much. EDIT: Link to quote: https://github.com/stacksgov/pm/issues/132#issuecomment-1164742905 |
|
First, I want to applaud @joberding on the effort that went into this and the thorough job she has done. It's great having experts like you in the community to spearhead this. I understand the purpose of a Code of Conduct. We have a Code of Conduct for Stacks Accelerator program which is fairly straight forward for an educational program/professional networking community. At the end of the day though, in our program I am the final boss, so it's more centralized. Which is part of the point. The Code of Conduct serves more to warn people about the things myself and our team have decided are unacceptable. We also live and die by our decisions here: if we misgovern our community, the returns on our fund will suffer and people won't want to work with us. But when it comes to a decentralized open source community, I think it's quite different. Also, I'm far from an expert here just to note. My thought is that the people governing behavior may not be accountable to the blowback from misgovernance. In addition, while I can understand the need in principle, I've also read blog posts on HackerNews about Code's of Conduct weaponized in open source communities specifically. Essentially, used as a political tool for a small group to oust key people they didn't like or agree with. Furthmore, I've had several people reach out to me (including VCs) concerned about the Code of Conduct discussion distracting Stacks from a very important moment where it is breaking through the noise and riding a wave of interest in Bitcoin that is likely to continue growing in the coming months. I'm not an expert on Code of Conduct's, as I'm sure most people in the community are not either. The feeling I am getting is that this is a very important undertaking that needs attention and consensus built around it--it's not something that should be rushed. My perception is that Stacks community today is overwhelming friendly and welcoming to new people. The only complaint I've heard about Stacks is the perception that it is cliquey with a lot of important conversations happening among "OGs" who have been in the ecosystem for 5+ years. I think the working groups initiative is helping to improve this by moving key conversations out of silos among people who are previous colleagues or friends into a more open forum. Overall, it's not clear to me what problem the Code of Conduct actually solves today, other than that we need a Code of Conduct. I'm not sure this is strong enough of a problem considering the hesitation and opposition in the community. I could imagine that as Stacks gets 10x - 100x bigger than it is now, a Code of Conduct would be of much greater importance. In addition, it seems more apt to allow the Code of Conduct to develop out of specific problems the community experiences as it grows, rather than to try and predict those problems in advance. Especially considering that a mismatch among the problem and solution could hinder our growth. All this is to say, I wonder if it's worth it to slow down and take more time to get buy in on this, but also to do so at a time when there is not a mad dash to participate in the once in a decade boom we're seeing happening on Bitcoin right now. Revisit in 6 months or so. I'm not hearing a lot of people asking for this yet, but I'm seeing a lot of people extremely opposed/concerned. |
Not disagreeing, but that's off-topic and a discussion that should be taken elsewhere.
You're lecturing to the choir here, but this is again irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Anybody can spin up their own communities as they see fit, without permission. If you, I or others find the governance of the Stacks discord community too restrictive, we're free to start your own unmoderated one (as others have in the past). As you say, "imagine tens, even hundreds, of Stacks communities deciding for themselves." Let's do it. |
|
@owenstrevor Agreed! Revisit at a later date. |
|
@owenstrevor good solution. Table for 6 months and assess whether such a CoC is even needed in the meantime. |
|
Hello @joberding. I see the proposed approach as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Could you please directly address my points above regarding decentralizing Stacks? And how it empowers greater diversity of peoples and ideas? |
@joberding yes, you are missing something. SIPs are for amendments to the core protocol OR to the SIP process itself. Your proposal does not fit into the existing SIP types because it is off-topic (read: spam).
This was precisely your problem statement.
The proposal itself is self-contradictory and therefore untenable. I recommend starting over from scratch with an increased focus on clarity of language and scope. Whatever is being proposed here: I vehemently oppose the creation of a SIP codifying a top-down COC for the entire stacks community at large. |
|
@RagnarLifthrasir, I think we now have six months to discuss that. Given the huge opportunity that Ordinals presents Stacks at this time, I propose we put this discussion on hold altogether for three months and reopen discussion during the summer. |
The "If you don't like it you can leave" approach centralizes power by disenfranchising and intimidating dissent. We should ACTIVELY be decentralizing.. Otherwise, what's the purpose of Stacks? |
|
@0xbabo SIP 000 has gone through multiple revisions since that comment. SIPs related to non-technical or informational matters are allowed and in some instances may be necessary. I think we as a community can decide on these matters going forward. For me, I need to get back to building. Discussions about the CoC/SIPs (as much as I love them) will not put food on my table. LFG! |
Hear, hear. |
and others
Abstract
The following is an RFC for the Stacks Code of Conduct (Beta Version). Please review, make comments and suggestions on the proposed code of conduct. Prior work on the Code of Conduct and relevant documents can be found at #119. The proposal and relevant milestones can be found at stacksgov/grants-program#27.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders include all members of the Stacks community. Community members can be generally identified as members, contributors and leaders.
Problem
There is not an official code of conduct for the Stacks community that has been reviewed or voted upon by the community at large. On April 17, 2020, the Blockstack PBC team adopted a Code of Conduct based on the Contributor Covenant model. stacks-network/stacks-core@38847fc
While the Contributor Covenant model is widely used in open source communities, there was no review or adoption of the April 17th code of conduct by the Stacks community at large. Even if the April 17th code of conduct is adopted by the community, there is no code of enforcement in existence. A code of conduct without a code of enforcement is useless.
Solution
The creation, adoption or adaption of a code of conduct submitted to the community for review and decision making via voting mechanism as proposed by the Governance group grant proposal. stacksgov/grants-program#27
Anticipated Difficulties
Freedom of Speech
An important potential problem is how wide the scope of enforcement should apply given freedom of speech issues. Some code of conduct models espouse enforcement related to communication outside the community. In addition, some members of our community believe that enforcement and removal should apply if community members engage in bad behavior in another public space.
Public Participation
One anticipated difficulty is encouraging community participation in the code of conduct review and decision making process.
Risks
Stacks Code of Conduct - Beta
Purpose
A primary goal of Stacks Community is to be inclusive to the largest number of contributors, with the most varied and diverse backgrounds possible. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ability, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and religion (or lack thereof).
This code of conduct outlines our expectations for all those who participate in our community, as well as the consequences for unacceptable behavior.
We invite all those who participate in the Stacks Community to help us create safe and positive experiences for everyone.
Open Citizenship
A supplemental goal of this Code of Conduct is to increase open citizenship by encouraging participants to recognize and strengthen the relationships between our actions and their effects on our community.
Communities mirror the societies in which they exist and positive action is essential to counteract the many forms of inequality and abuses of power that exist in society.
If you see someone who is making an extra effort to ensure our community is welcoming, friendly, and encourages all participants to contribute to the fullest extent, we want to know.
A Can’t Be Evil Ethos
A root ethos of the Stacks community is “Can’t Be Evil’. This rallying cry represents a deep core belief in a user owned internet flanked by the pillars of privacy and self sovereign identity. We strongly believe in individual rights together with decentralization. This ethos is a centerpiece of our community and development.
Our Pledge
We as Stacks community members pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
Our Standards
Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:
Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
Enforcement Responsibilities
Community moderators are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
Community moderators have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate.
Scope
This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.
Enforcement
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at [email protected]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly.
All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the reporter of any incident.
Enforcement Guidelines
Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:
Correction
Community Impact: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.
Consequence: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.
Warning
Community Impact: A violation through a single incident or series of actions.
Consequence: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.
Temporary Ban
Community Impact: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior.
Consequence: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period. Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.
Permanent Ban
Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.
Consequence: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the community.
Attribution
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 2.0, available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct.html.
Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by Mozilla’s code of conduct enforcement ladder.
Language was incorporated from the following Codes of Conduct:
Citizen Code of Conduct licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
LGBTQ in Tech , licensed under a Creative Commons Zero License
Django Project Code of Conduct, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Rust Code of Conduct
References
General
Our Culture
The Guide to Allyship
Creative Commons: When we share, everyone wins
First Amendment
Does Freedom of Speech Exist in Cryptocurrency Communities?
First Amendment and Censorship | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues
Mahanoy Area School District v. BL - SCOTUSblog
Participation
Working Open & Public Participation
Open Leadership Training Series : Working Open
IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation
Blockchain for Cities - A systematic literature review
Codes of Conduct
http://safetyfirstpdx.org/resources/code_of_conduct.html
Open Leadership Training Series : Write or Choose a Code of Conduct
https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
Your Code of Conduct
HOWTO design a code of conduct for your community
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust
https://zcash.readthedocs.io/en/latest/rtd_pages/code_of_conduct.html
https://electriccoin.co/code-of-conduct/
https://github.com/stumpsyn/policies/blob/master/citizen_code_of_conduct.md
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct/
https://lgbtq.technology/coc.html
Moderation & Enforcement
How We’re Making Code of Conduct Enforcement Real — and Scaling it.
https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion
mozilla/inclusion@dd8e90d?short_path=cc202f7#diff-cc202f7c9ffb912918fe950a7752b1a44e05396bf8a2c3f962eeb36acdfb3eaf
Centralisation is a danger to democracy — Redecentralize.org
Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: