Is disruptive behaviour a CEPC issue?

[mnot]

Item 14 of unacceptable behaviour is:

Sustained disruption of discussion. This may include, but is not limited to, various common methods of engaging in bad faith discourse such as:

• concern trolling: disingenuously expressesing concern in order to undermine or derail a discussion. Geek Feminism Wiki
• sealioning: asking numerous questions about basic concepts in an attempt to derail discussion, to stifle participation, or to provoke a critical response in order to appear a victim. RationalWiki
• Gish Galloping: overwhelming a debate with many weak arguments in an attempt to cause others to waste time refuting them. RationalWiki
• argumentum ad nauseam: repeatedly making claims already shown to be false. RationalWiki
• Repeatedly interrupting or talking over someone else.

Continuing to raise issues that were not accepted by the group consensus. It you feel you have important new information or that your argument did not get a fair hearing, then contact the chairs. Otherwise, accept the group consensus and move on.

These are different from every other item in the list of unacceptable behaviour, because they are harming the Process, not a person. This makes me wonder if they're appropriate here -- e.g., is it necessary or helpful to escalate them to the ombudspeople? Should they be publicly dealt with? Should appeal be available?

[TzviyaSiegman]

Disrupting discussion, especially interrupting individuals is a form of disrespect. When this happens repeatedly, especially to underrepresented groups or to women, even if it is not by the same person, it is a CoC violation. Perhaps you've seen people talking over others in meetings? Perhaps you've observed that this happens repeatedly to some more than others? The goal of this code is to establish a respectful and positive work environment. Moreover, we have repeatedly we have been asked to help avoid issues of Process abuse.

[frivoal]

These are different from every other item in the list of unacceptable behaviour, because they are harming the Process, not a person.

They affect persons too, at least because those unwilling to resort to equally trollish behavior are forced out of the conversation, and possibly out of the community if that happens to often. This can affect anyone, but especially those who already have a difficult time being included in the first place.

[mnot]

Perhaps you've seen people talking over others in meetings? Perhaps you've observed that this happens repeatedly to some more than others?

Tzviya, I'm trying not to read that phrasing as being patronising, but it's difficult to do so.

[TzviyaSiegman]

No patronizing intended @mnot. I'm genuinely asking you to consider what you've observed at meetings.

[mnot]

Thanks for clarifying your intent.

I agree that 'Repeatedly interrupting or talking over someone else' is targetted at a person, so let's exclude that.

Let's look at another one -- e.g., argumentum ad nauseam. My reading is that the harm here is to the Process; we could stretch things and say that it harms people through wasted time and frustration, but it's not about one person (unless the ad nauseum is literally directed at one person, but that's really a different thing).

Assuming that's valid, the question here is whether the escaltion path, sanctions, and institutions for handling process issues and interopersonal issues should be the same. Ombuds are highly specialised in the latter, but may not be in the former (especially if we hire outside experts). Handling of process issues are likely to need to be more transparent than interpersonal ones. Different sanctions may be necessary.

It may be that it's not necessary to distinguish them now because we haven't defined a lot of process around escalation and sanctions, and the role of the Ombuds is still being refined. So maybe this is premature; if so I'm happy if it's closed or deferrred. It just came up in a conversation I was having and I wanted to capture it.

[michaelchampion]

I don't fully agree with "These are different from every other item in the list of unacceptable behaviour, because they are harming the Process, not a person."

For one thing, a clever troll COULD essentially target a person with such disruptive behavior. For example by knowing they can "push their buttons" to get someone to waste time dealing with all the arguments in a Gish Gallop, or trying to deal with all the minutiae a Sea Lion insists on discussing. (On reflection, this seems to be similar to the point @frivoal raises above about trollish behavior driving people out of the conversation or community)

But mainly, I see several other points that are could be considered "harming the process" as much as "harming a person". For example:

"Threats" could include things like "I will sue your company if you vote to overrule my formal objection." Such a thing would probably an empty threat, so more of an attempt to delay/obstruct the process while (expensive) legal counsel confirms its emptiness, than something that would make someone feel personally threatened. (Obviously a physical threat / intimidation of a specific person is "harming a person" however).

Peddling Disinformation would generally be more a threat to the process than to individuals. (Although of course the disinformation, or for that matter dog whistles, MIGHT target individuals)

Retaliation for pursuing complaints likewise could target W3C not the individuals complaining. For example "All 20 members of my industry association will resign from W3C if that complaint is upheld" would not be targeted at a person or persons.

That said, the point

the question here is whether the escaltion path, sanctions, and institutions for handling process issues and interopersonal issues should be the same. Ombuds are highly specialised in the latter, but may not be in the former

is a good one to keep in mind when implementing effective sanctions against CoC violations.

[LJWatson]

@mnot, my understanding is that the CEPC is as much about professional conduct as it is the impact a lack of "respect, professionalism, fairness, and sensitivity" can have on an individual. I think that deliberately holding up the Process is a reasonable example of a lack of professional conduct.

[chaals]

One of my overall reactions to the current version has been that it lists a lot of specific things. Many of those were effectively about ensuring that individuals were not targeted by unprofessional behaviour.

Some of the revisions seem to aim at ensuring that the work of a group is not derailed by unprofessional behaviour.

The impact on groups is sort of symmetrical - groups that permit anyone to marginalise individuals become unfriendly and don't get the input and collaboration they need, groups that permit someone to disrupt the group frustrates individuals, with a similar outcome.

I think it would be helpful in some revision to call out these two themes more explicitly as a way to understand the goals. (I don't think we need to stop the press to get this right before we update the published version - the improvements we have are IMHO important to get into the "currently applicable" version).

[mnot]

I think it would be helpful in some revision to call out these two themes more explicitly as a way to understand the goals.

+1 that would be helpful -- perhaps even separate them into different sections.

[chaals]

Hmm. I am not sure it makes sense to separate into two sections. Although it is possible to engage in disruptive behaviour apparently targeting no individual, e.g. by repeatedly raising concerns against a document, making it difficult for the group to update their document.

(I've been trying to think about concrete edits that would address this, but I haven't got one yet).

[jwrosewell]

@mnot

the harm here is to the Process

Can you explain how the Process can be harmed?

@ljwatson

I think that deliberately holding up the Process is a reasonable example of a lack of professional conduct.

Can you explain how the Process be deliberately held up?

If there is a problem with the Process then the Process Community Group seems to be the place to address this rather than via the CoC/PWETF.

[TzviyaSiegman]

@jwrosewell The Process document does not address human behavior.

@chaals if you recommend dividing this into separate sections, please raise a new issue. We will NOT address this in CEPC 2023.

@mnot if there is specific wording to review, please open a separate issue.