 So, Natasha, I'm really glad that you are taking the time to talk with me about the Universal Code of Conduct today. And I wanted to start out with the question of how did you learn about the effort that is going on to draft a Universal Code of Conduct? How did you get aware of this? Mainly through the strategy process 2020-2030 in which I was also involved, mainly concerning the question of harassment. What impact do you think it will have on the community? Well, your home wiki is the French Wikipedia, but within that wiki you are supporting a very special community, a part of the community, you are supporting women and also non-binary persons identifying as female. So what impact do you think this will have on this special community? I think it's already having an impact in that there are ongoing discussions about what is harassment, how to deal with it, and how to deal with people who use aggressive language to formulate their opinions. We have a founding principle, the fourth one, which is based on respect, but at the moment it's not applied. So having a Code of Conduct and discussing and debating about it certainly will bring awareness to the community as a whole about the need to moderate and to be careful about how we express our opinions so that we don't marginalize people in our communities because if we want knowledge to be available for everybody and if we want everybody to be able to construct that knowledge, we do need a diversity of representation. At the moment, on the Francophone Wikipedia, there are 10% women contributors and 90% others. So that means that a wide range of the population already is not represented. Now, if you look a bit more finely into LGBT person, trans person, that is even worse. And we need a specific effort so that these people are welcome and that they do not face aggressive behaviors. Otherwise, they do not contribute and we don't get to have their input in the construction of our universal knowledge. Do you think this applies also when we don't think just about one wiki, the French Wikipedia, but many people, many Wikimedians contribute to several projects, maybe several projects in their own language like wiki source or wiki quote, but also sometimes in different languages or they contribute to those projects that are not language bound like wiki data, wiki comments. So do you see that it might have a different effect also for those people who work cross-project-wise? I think when you start with a project, whether it's wiki data, Wikipedia, wiki source, you get involved sometimes politically in the movement, in the chapters and then it is a cross-project movement. I speak French, German and English and although I contribute mostly to Wikipedia, I came into wiki data because I needed to do queries, so it's a transversal project and if you consider the Francophone Wikipedia and I do use the word Francophone and not French, it's problematic that it's very Parisian-centered and French-centered and if you are Swiss, I'm not Swiss, I'm French and I live in Switzerland, but if you are Swiss or coming from Quebec, it's very hard to bring in your own opinion because people will talk to you about French institutions for the regulation of the language, for example, inclusive language and we are on the internet. This is our territory and we have to think globally about the internet and of course, nations and geography is important, but we are in a cross-cultural and multi-language project. For example, some contributors of Les Sampages created Noir-sur-Wikipedia and they are on two projects, Engren-Cinado-Wikipedia, I don't know if I pronounce it correctly because I don't speak Spanish, and they do wiki data and the Spanish and the Francophone Wikipedia all at the same time. So this is a perfect example because they are Afro-descendant and they want to decolonize Wikipedia using their own term, which I think it's important to let people use their own terms of engagement and not accusing them aggressively all the time of puff-pushing and being social justice warriors because these are not facts, these are judgments. Thank you very much for opening up the perspective beyond what you yourself are doing to those other perspectives of those women that work closely with you but have their own projects and have their own views and their own experiences and bringing this into this conversation. Beyond those questions of impact, do you have anything else that you would like to talk about now that the drafting has started, is going on, but that the Universal Code of Conduct is not yet finished? It's important to think how it will be enforced first of all from the things that I have read about in the open source community. In the open source community, all the main projects have had contributor covenants starting in 2003 and so we have a backlog of experiences about applying Code of Conducts. So I think, first of all, the Wikimedia movement cannot do without a contributor covenant anymore. It's incredible to think we have been doing without so many years and we have to think about, look closely into the open source experience to see what worked and what didn't work. And there are some things we know do not work. Like the worst thing on Earth we can have is a Code of Conduct that is not applied. A Code of Conduct which is not applied sends the wrong message. It means we have a Code of Conduct but we wash our hands and it's just there as a kind of washing, a Code of Conduct washing. And it gives a message to the wrong message, ambiguous messages to new contributors is that when they experience harassment and they think, oh there's a Code of Conduct let's see what we can do and then if they get a response that it doesn't apply go and see with your local Wikimedia, we can't answer this, because this and this and that without giving even an emotional response because what people need first is an emotional response beyond Technicity and we will examine this and then you wait three months. This is the worst thing that can happen. And then when you apply a Code of Conduct what works and what doesn't is that the all public and transparent option does not work because it is fragilizing the victim that is being harassed like all her, she's already, people are in a fragile state and you expose them to the community and community can just answer things out of the blue like you would have 200 contributors contributing one line but they do not realize how their words are going to be taken by somebody who is fragile and sometimes one word, one word is enough to make somebody feel very, very bad and it's not the intention that counts it's that for a person who receives 200 messages from different parts of the projects which are not connected which might not be nasty messages but all that together that is constituting of mobbing. What doesn't work is the all public option and what is important is how the accused person reacts because if this person goes viral then you experience a kind of gamer gate backlash where the victim is being accused of accusing the other of harassment and there everybody goes mad and nobody is able to decipher the complexity of the thing and then if you let it go at one point people will become so aggressive and angry you don't know whether you should not ban everybody at the end which is a total disaster and chaos so that doesn't work what could work and I think you need to think about that when drafting the Code of Conduct is you need the conversation to be private but you need the community to be aware of how it's going on of the process and maybe the community could elect people that they trust which would go to a kind of an arbitration community an elected body that would look at it with both new eyes and eyes from the outside and from the inside paying attention to the representativity in this elected council and then this elected council would issue an advice or decision I don't know and then post back this is what has been decided and nobody goes and fumbles in the dustbins of history and the aggressor and the victims are protected because an aggressor can change and maybe they don't want things to go public people can do things at one point and then they can change and it's not correct just to that anybody can go and take out these diffs and continue having arguments for years and years afterwards so although I'm all for transparency and openness after being involved in Wikimedia France Board of Conflict of Interest Management I did realize that not everything needs to go public and it's even dangerous but you need people to be accountable to be elected they need to be in accountability so that there's a process that people agree on and this is very important when drafting the Code of Conduct and I think you cannot just draft the Code of Conduct and not think about this in parallel Thank you very much for those insights and I hope you will also take part in the discussions and what we call phase two where we will be talking about how can enforcement work in detail who should be enforcing what what should be the reporting channels so I'm very much looking forward to that but for now I want to thank you and wish you a wonderful day Thank you very much for your attention and all the best of luck