When communicating with reporters and subjects of the report, it's important to keep the following in mind:
-
Protecting reporters is our first priority. Never forward communication or disclose identities of reporters outside of the code of conduct committee, without the express written permission of the person concerned.
-
If adding or removing people from the recipients list of an email thread, note the change at the top of the email, like this:
[+ John] [- Eric]
this helps guard against someone accidentally sharing protected information without being aware of the recipients.
- Different people will experience the same situation in different ways. Subjective or emotional language is easily misinterpreted or disputed, for example naming someone as thinking or feeling something. Instead, stick to observed facts.
- Always cc [email protected] on communication, or forward replies that had the address removed.
-
No matter how compelling the evidence, we need to give people who are subjects of reports some sort of "right of reply" before we finalise our decision. That doesn't mean we have to disclose details, or let them excuse their bad behavior - but we should engage them in a process, rather than just pronouncing a decision. If someone feels like they're engaged in a process, rather than just being railroaded, they're less likely to criticise the process after the fact.
-
We need to make sure we don't lose sight of the goal. The goal isn't "get them" - it's "make the community safer". It's a subtle point, but an important one, because it shapes some of the actions we might take.
-
To that end, one big piece of advice - don't underestimate just asking. If we ask problematic individuals not to attend Django events in future, rather than ban them, there's a good chance they'll just comply.
Going public, or telling others, is sometimes necessary when the community remains at risk after the actions we can take in private.
When deciding to share information about a problematic individual, there's potential for claims of slander, libel, defamation of character and reputational damage. In serious cases we should seek legal advice. The following approaches mitigate this risk:
-
We should do everything we can to get multiple corroboration of any complaint. That enables us to do two things:
- Say "this is a pattern of behavior", not "this is one bad incident". This strengthens the case we can make for any action, because we're not "overreacting to one bad incident".
- Deflect the "blame" for reporting away from a specific reporter.
-
There's a difference between giving someone information, and telling them what to do. If we told event organizers "Don't invite this person", then we're the direct cause of any reputational damage they may suffer. If, however, we tell organizers that a person has been the subject of (1 or more) code of conduct complaints, relating to incidents x, y and z - but leave the decision as to whether they are banned/not invited up to the organizers - then the DSF has more legal cover, because all we're doing is providing information, not directing action.
-
Any information we communicate needs to be written down, not done over Skype/Hangout. If we tell community organizers about problem individuals, we need to email our response, and make sure we're very careful in our language so that it's perfectly clear that it's up to them what they choose to do with the information we give them.
-
We need to make sure we follow our process to the letter. Any claims made about "reckless behavior leading to loss of reputation" will hinge on whether we actually followed our own processes.