| > The code of conduct provides a process for people to address grievances. No, that's the general procedure for handling adding and removing board members. It's the same procedure you'd follow if someone was arrested in the middle of the meeting. A code of conduct is about the specific conduct. Picking your teeth, insulting tall people, etc. > I don't think it's easy to game a code of conduct. Could you explain If there is a written code it has to declare where the lack of gender recognition offense is compared to screaming at someone, for instance. If the code lists your pet offense above screaming, which they all do, then you can scream at people about your pet issue all day with zero risk. If none of this is mentioned then it all falls back to the law. This is better because more skilled people have done more work on it, and because it's outside of the group's mandate so they can let members deal with it outside of the group. I can't follow you through a 7-11 yelling at you so you can apply the same rules to our official interactions and call the police if I act unruly in a meeting, no vote required. Also, how does voting work when not only the level of offense, but the standard of offense itself is subjective. Does an accused director get to vote on whether the claimed offense falls into a listed class, but then have to recuse themselves for the vote on the seriousness of the specific claim? Or are they expected to recuse themselves from everything? How many directors do you need to accuse at once before quorum is you alone? Generally nobody sees why you can't tell people about the specific anti-fraud rules until they work in a fraud-rife industry and watch the arms race. If you haven't been involved with multiple non-profits you might not have experienced this yet. > I said that he should be replaced because he wasn't doing a satisfactory job. But the thing he wasn't satisfying you by doing was enacting a code of conduct? > I think that some of these problems could have been avoided if he made a stronger distinction between the GNU project and the FSF Good point. I think everyone running things should try not to co-mingle their jobs. But this isn't a code of conduct issue, it's more appropriate as one of the basic requirements for a director. No conflicts of interest. > Not wanting a code of conduct is [...] just bad policy for large projects No, a code of conduct is a kiss of death. It adds nothing that honest members of the group need but gives trolls and ideologues a field day. A group should never have rules about things outside of its core tasks, unless it wants 90% of its time to be spent arguing about things outside of its core tasks. |