See the notes here:
Working doc for potential CoC:
Added on 3/12 by @jpitts:
The GitHub repo contains periodic updates to the proposed CoC (@jpitts will submit PRs when the HackMD stabilizes after discussions). Please use the issues to track the work, and submit PRs for changes to the CoC.
@jpitts @wmougayar @Tegan @chaals (please tag others!) here are the docs - I am trying to find a spot, i would appreciate some help on cleaning up the coc v1 or commenting
New CoC document, already cleaned up: https://hackmd.io/s/SkZ6ZV2UV
To be presented tomorrow at 12:50 at the ETHcc Hall Paul Painleve
Thank you! And we will probably need to iterate several times, your feedbackâs always welcomed.
Please let us know here if you would like to be added as a committer to the GitHub repo, this repo will enable us to coordinate on feedback and finalization, as well as to have versioning of releases of the policy.
As Maria Paula pointed out, the active working document is https://hackmd.io/s/SkZ6ZV2UV.
How it is adopted needs to be explored. One approach may be a set of steps for adoption to be considered valid. The team creates a repo called policies, then creates a copy of this Code of Conduct there. The team then announces adoption on their social media channels, and links to it on their website.
Lacking a CoC from themselves or their âparentâ organization means that team leadership, contributors, and participants at events are likely to have an inconsistent or even unthoughtful response to incidents which may happen.
Intent is important to include in the policy itself, in order for all of the relevant pieces of the policy to be easily and quickly understood.
@jpitts Adoption via Github does seem like natural protocol hereâŚwhere many of these teams are âlocatedâ and have online IDs (can also use keybase or similar to connect other social media profiles to this Github adoptionâŚsee, e.g., Aragon coop profiles: https://github.com/aragoncoop/membership).
For ease of teams to track versioning-up of C-CoC, Integrity Ring might have its own standalone repo maintaining iterations that folks can fork to adopt most recent C-CoC version?
@mariapaulafn continuing our discussion re: potential Twitter adoption protocol / prevention scheme for C-CoCâŚ(verrrrrry loose ideas below, but hope helpful to throw out ideas!)
(i) Might consider EthMagicians tweeting/pinning most recent version of C-CoC (https://hackmd.io/s/SkZ6ZV2UV) for âtentative adoption via Retweetâ w/ #SignCoC and comment⌠As language stands, it could probably already add some comfort to online âdiscourseâ with less vague sense of normsâŚ
(ii) In terms of âprevention scheme,â EthMagicians could then Tweet link to C-CoC with âTwitter ADR Riderâ stating that anyone that retweets w/ â#ArbCoCâ agrees to remove an offensive tweet against another member when such tweet is found to violate C-CoC by independent C-CoC memberâŚw/ such third party to be whoever Complainant and âComplaineeâ both agree to tag on Twitter in their âdispute threadâ hashing out Twitter offenseâŚ
What is a âTwitter ADR Rider?â
Also, Iâm not sure I understand what youâre saying with (ii). The general idea seems to be that if someone violates the CoC a community member can flag it. Then a moderator from that channel will take a look at it and evaluate it against the latest CoC right? What would a âdispute threadâ hashing out a Twitter offense look like?
Yeah, I should define my terms better.
When I say âRider,â I basically mean concise statement that folks might adopt in addition to CoC language ⌠laying out mechanism to enforce CoC on Twitter and get folks to selfcensor/delete harmful Tweets because Twtr might be unreliable moderator (despite this being perhaps broadest, most active forum for Ethereum discussionsâŚ). Still definitely just tossing out ideas to the wind though; glad to try and think through other particulars.
A dispute thread might look like this:
Bob: Hey @Carl19283, this tweet ^^ would seem to violate CoC, could you remove?
Carl: I donât see a problem here; also, just trolling 
Bob: Meh, itâs good to just clarify these things for the community. @John129283, can you #ArbCoC this biz? Does that work for you @Carl19283?
Carl: Fair enough!
John: This is a doozy and certainly would violate CoC as I understand it. Alright Carl, will you be chill and delete?
Carl: Fine fine.
John: #ArbCoC success!
Not sure if this is the best place to share feedback. If not please let me know. Anyways, hope this is helpful 
Itâs great that the community is creating a Community Code of Conduct. Even cooler is that itâ opt-in. When organizations and individuals buy-in theyâre doing so against the default. Theyâre taking action. Thatâs meaningful.
I agree with everything in the doc and it all makes sense, except the part on Unwelcomed Behavior. This part is very vague. What is unpolite or unprofessional to one person might be honest to another. As Linus said âOn the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle.â
Also, too often smart people will hide ill intent behind polite speech. Theyâre very good at it. Also, sometimes those who are rough around the edges are the most caring. They say things that are less than eloquent, but have good intentions and honest feedback. Theyâre willing to say the truth, and sometimes thatâs hard. The world isnât this black and white, but itâs important to keep these things in mind.
In the CoC doc thereâs a list of âquestions to ask yourself.â These are a good start, but I can see a whole host of situations where this could get complicated. Everythingâs relative. Humanâs operate on subjective viewpoints, but thereâs no global âtruthâ. It comes down to how people feel. This is treacherous confusing territory.
With these questions the goal seems to be to reduce drama and increase empathy? If so, hereâs a few more questions that have helped me avoid conflict and drama. These questions do not directly address more hostile forms of negative behavior. They address what often leads to conflict and drama: miscommunication. For me, thinking about incentives and playing to win a positive sum game is much easier and more compelling than thinking about âfeelings.â Hereâs a few ways I frame that:
Am I playing a positive sum game?
Do I feel like itâs a game of âus/me vs them?â If so, are there any ideas or solutions that would be a win/win?
Am I taking into consideration the interests of all parties involved, or just my own?
Am I talking about the person, or their ideas/actions?
Am I creating value?
If I am highlighting a problem, am I also proposing a solution? If so, is that solution supported by facts as well as feedback from the community? If not, am I seeking out feedback to create a win/win scenario or trying to sell people on my idea vs theirs?
If I am highlighting a problem, what would have to change for that to no longer be a problem. What needs to happen to make it better? Sharing this feedback with other party could help facilitate constructive conversations rather than being stuck in the land of opinions and emotions.
If I am proposing a solution, is it a solution for me or for all parties involved? If all parties involved would not be happy with this idea, is there a way to change it where they would be?
Are we talking about facts, or opinions?
I donât know much about Ethereum Magicians or rolling CoCs, but I hope this is helpful. Also, if this isnât the right place for feedback or this direction isnât useful please let me know!
And what about the other scenario where Carl is not so chill and does not delete it? What then?
@ross, agreed, I am starting to think that this should be in its own repo once the proposal reaches âfinalâ, in order to ease in the release, adoption, and forking process.
I also support this. As someone new to the Magicians and C-CoC, a GitHub repo would make it easy to find the latest version of the doc. It also adds transparency and lets anyone to see the history and evolution of the C-CoC over time.
I agree. This is powerful.
Also agree.
As far as indication goes, a social media flare might be a little weird. It would create an âusâ and âthemâ group. Whether or not thatâs the intention, anything that allows for differentiation also allows for discrimination.
What about a file in the repo like what Aragon did, or like the people who supported the Pitchforks are for hay not hate letter? You could even bake it into a smart contract. People would opt-in by sending a tx to the contract. The action shows they really care, itâs publicly verifiable, and you canât sign someone up without their consent. Itâs also completely open so anyone can choose to join and contribute 
Itâs essential to put thought into how disputes would be resolved. Otherwise at the first sign of trouble the entire system will devolve into a sea of confusion and frustration. If the system doesnât work, no one will trust it. It needs to work. Do you guys have any ideas how we could test that out? Like would we have to role play various scenarios in a red team / blue team game like the infosec community? lol
Also, glad my suggestions were helpful. I donât think it makes sense to put them in the main CoC doc, but they could become part of a supporting doc. That way if people opt-in to the CoC theyâll have the latest CoC doc to refer to, but also a set of supplementary guides. These could include:
The CoC says what not to do. The supplementary guides could provide suggestions on what to do. This would help cap the downside of negative behaviors, but also provide support and direction for positive growth. It works for tomato plants ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
As someone new to the Magicians, terms like integrity and clarity are very vague. I could assume I know what youâre talking about, but Iâd rather know. Can you please explain what you meant here?
Yeah, but whatâs âclarity?â Are you referring to stating things is a way that is easy to understand? Transparency? Or something else entirely?
I disagree. If both parties have agreed to the CoC they can go through arbitration. I think that this scenario will be unlikely given that the program is opt-in and the Ethereum community is rather large. Most people will follow the default. That means that if someone flags a comment for moderation, most likely the moderator will be limited to making suggestions to âplay nice.â At most the moderator could check the CoC for that communication channel or platform to see if it breaks any rules there.
Essentially, I think that the CoC could serve to help educate and guide the community towards more respectful, constructive, and open dialog. I donât think that people rolling around with sheriff badges is going to go over well though.
Agreed. An implementation guide would be great because in this case âhowâ is a lot more complicated than âwhatâ or âwhy.â Support docs around better communication tactics would be great too
Excellent feedback!
To answer this one, I agree! HackMD is good for early drafting but eventually it needs to get into better tools (and not even sure if GitHub is as good as others for policy work). I have created a GitHub repo for Integrity Ring projects, and the first piece of it is this CoC. Perhaps it can evolve into something like EIPs for policy-making and coordination between teams on integrity-related issues.
So should we move our discussions to GitHub issues? Or keep talking here but have the repo be a public facing reference point?
Also, the repo readme points to the HackMD doc rather than the doc thatâs actually in the repo. Is that a feature or a bug?
Good point about the pointing to HackMD file, the process should be more clear. I saw the HackMD as the live working doc, which I was periodically syncing with commits on my fork of the repo, then pull requesting.
IMO it is better to have the discussion in a multi-threaded Forum, as messy as it can get. GitHub issue comments are linear.