 Welcome, everybody. I'm Joanna Lee, the VP of Strategic Programs and Legal at the Linux Foundation and CNCF. And I have with me several of the co-chairs of our Code of Conduct Working Group. Arun Gupta, he's the governing board representative co-chair, Emily Fox from TOC. And Kristoff, who is the elected maintainer representative leading this effort. So about nine months ago, we launched this Code of Conduct Working Group to really up-level and evolve Code of Conduct processes instructors at CNCF. So historically, all Code of Conduct incidents were resolved solely by CNCF staff. And there wasn't a lot of documentation and clarity regarding the procedures and how incidents were resolved. And there were a lot of processes behind the scenes, but not really visible to the community. And it's so important in an open source community for there to be community, technical community involved in how we do governance and establishing cultural norms and resolving Code of Conduct incidents and conflict that arises in the community. And so we formed this Code of Conduct Working Group to really up-level the process and make sure that there is strong community representation in how Code of Conduct incidents get resolved, combined with support from the foundation, because there's often a need to bring in external investigators or mediators. We're so thrilled to have Colleen Prasad on our team now who is our event ombuds person. So she's now at events on site. So she's a neutral, external consultant that people can go to and talk to and share concerns that they have or report violations. If for some reason they're not able to find a Code of Conduct committee member or a staff member, or they just want a truly, truly confidential, neutral party to speak to who's not on staff and not part of the committee. So we sought out to create a new structure and really clear documentation regarding how Code of Conduct incidents would be resolved going forward. Also, we wanted to clarify the jurisdictional rules around how Code of Conduct incidents are handled. We have the Kubernetes Code of Conduct committee who's done some great work. We have other projects that have Code of Conduct committees. And then the LF events team has historically also responded on site to Code of Conduct incidents that happen at events. And then there's this need for a CNCF level Code of Conduct committee. So how do we sort out which incidents get resolved by which body? So we've developed a jurisdiction policy and I'll provide a highlight of that, of an overview of you that shortly. And we really wanted to provide accountability and transparency and clarity around the whole process and structure. So the four deliverables that have been produced that we consider the minimum viable product for Code of Conduct enforcement structure include some updates to the Code of Conduct itself, incident resolution procedures that cover how to submit a report, how reports are handled, how we deal with confidential information, who information can be shared with and when, et cetera, the jurisdiction policy, as well as our charter for the Code of Conduct committee, who serves on the committee, what are the eligibility requirements, how do we conduct elections, what are the quorum requirements, how are decisions made, et cetera. All of the work of the Code of Conduct working group has been occurring on GitHub in our repository with a roadmap and a review cycle. So we are almost across the finish line. We've been hard at work for a number of months, launch in October, and have been steadily working towards completion of all of these deliverables. Right now we are finalizing the Code of Conduct committee charter. We saved that one for last because we knew that there would probably be the most discussion around that and there has been some great feedback and commentary shared and the comment period for that document is still open. So we invite you to share your feedback directly with the co-chairs or myself or comment in GitHub. After we finalize the charter, there will be one final public comment period on all the documents as a whole and this is also our opportunity to make sure the cross references match, that there's alignment and to do some fine tuning before it goes to the governing board and the TOC for ratification. And then the final step is to hold elections and launch the committee and provide training and onboarding to the new committee members. So I'm gonna go just provide an overview of each of the deliverables we've produced so far as well as an overview of some of the open issues that are under discussion. So the first deliverable we produced was a set of updates to the Code of Conduct itself. There were a number of editorial changes and refinements but essentially these are the highlights. We clarified that the Code of Conduct applies to all participants in our community, not just contributors. So that includes event attendees who may not have made their first contribution yet. We've also added additional dimensions of diversity, the commitment to make CNCF a harassment-free environment for everybody. We also updated the scope to clarify that the Code of Conduct applies not just in project spaces but also in overall community spaces. So for example at events or at meetups and also when an individual's words or actions are directed at or about a CNCF project, the community or another community participant. Because we realize there have been a number of incidents in recent years that weren't clearly captured by the current scope statement. Also we added welcoming and inclusive language to the list of examples of positive behavior. There were some additional examples added to the list of unacceptable behavior including violence, stalking, unwelcome physical contact, unwelcome sexual or romantic attention. Also providing knowingly false or misleading information in connection with an incident and retaliating against a person who's in good faith submitted a report or provided information as a witness. We've also produced a jurisdiction policy that is quite detailed that describes which body resolves which incidents. It also outlines an appeal process. There are some exceptions to each of these to these general rules but in general a project level Code of Conduct response team whether it be a committee or designated Code of Conduct responders, they would be responsible for enforcing the CNCF Code of Conduct when an incident is occurring entirely in a project. The CNCF Code of Conduct Committee is responsible for resolving incidents when they occur, their incidents are either project agnostic. So like for example, if the conduct occurred in public or at an event or if it impacts multiple projects or if the behavior occurred in a project that doesn't have its own designated Code of Conduct response team, a vast majority of CNCF projects do not have their own Code of Conduct committee. There are just a few that do. And then there are some incidents that are resolved by the Linux Foundation, primarily the events team. And this applies to incidents that happen onsite an event that violate the LF events Code of Conduct. And also if there's an event that there's an incident with a heightened risk of legal action or liability. And there are some events, some incidents that would violate both the LF events Code of Conduct and the CNCF Code of Conduct. So those are namely events that, incidents that occur at or in connection with the CNCF event like KeebCon. And those would be jointly resolved by the Linux Foundation events team and the CNCF Code of Conduct committee. The jurisdiction policy also provides appeal rights in very limited situations. For example, if it's discovered that the project level Code of Conduct responders had conflicts of interest and didn't recuse themselves or if there is an outcome that's grossly disproportionate to the incident. For example, mirror one time rudeness and the person apologize if they were banned from the community permanently, that's not proportional, right? Or if somebody is continuing to engage in really, really egregious behavior that endangers the community and they were only given a warning and they're persisting in the behavior. That's another situation where the outcome is not proportional to the incident, the harm. And a situation where the CNCF Code of Conduct committee might review an appeal from a project level outcome. Otherwise a CNCF Code of Conduct committee, unless there's some real issue in either the outcome or the process that was followed, the CNCF Code of Conduct committee is not going to second guess the decisions of project leaders. There's also a framework for determining whether there are legal risk factors and if there are then project level responders and CNCF Code of Conduct committee would consult with LF legal on what the actual legal risk is and whether it's something that the Linux foundation should handle instead so that the Code of Conduct committee is not exposing itself to risk of legal action liability. And there's also some procedures for how record keeping happens. Namely, it's important that there be some centralized repository of summaries of incidents so that we can identify patterns in the community, like are there particular types of incidents that seem to be recurring and maybe there's a cultural issue that needs to be addressed or also if there's somebody's a repeat offender. That's helpful to know because multiple violations by the same person versus a one time occurrence obviously could warrant a different outcome. We have detailed incident resolution procedures that cover a whole range of topics. Really the operations of the incident resolution process including how to submit a report. Everything that happens after a report is submitted from investigation and evaluation to notification of the outcome. There's more information here about confidentiality policies and how and when information can be shared. Procedures for communicating the results of an investigation, conflicts of interest, what those mean, the difference between a hard conflict and a soft conflict and the procedures and obligations of committee members to recuse themselves. There's also examples of potential remedies and outcomes. There is a provision clarifying that interim protective measures can be taken if necessary when an investigation is pending to protect community members from harm and also a list of factors that are considered in determining the outcome of an incident. So we are now finalizing the Code of Conduct Committee Charter. This is still open for public comment so we really welcome your feedback on how to fine tune this and get the right composition here. So the current proposal is that there would be three elected community members in addition to alternates and two CNCF staff members that are designated by CNCF. This structure does contemplate having alternates and the reason there would be alternates is if a primary committee member has a conflict of interest, is on vacation, is sick, is for whatever reason is unavailable or shouldn't participate in resolution of an incident because of a conflict of interest they have, we wanna make sure that there are alternates available to step in so that we always have multiple community members involved in resolution of an incident. It's not best practice to have a single person having to determine the outcome of an incident. We always want to make sure that this is a group decision making process. Universal eligibility requirement for all members of the committee is that they must not have violated at the CNCF Code of Conduct within the prior 18 months. There are some additional eligibility criteria and procedures for the elected community representatives. The current proposal would have term lengths of two years and no limits on the number of terms that somebody could serve. Also a company representation limit to reduce the likelihood that lots of people would have to accuse themselves of conflict of interest. We don't want more than two people from one company serving on the committee at one time. So some additional eligibility criteria and some of these are hard requirements and some of them are soft. This is similar to how Kubernetes does it. They have both some hard and soft requirements. The person needs to be an active participant in the community or previously been an active participant. We want people who understand this committee at this community and who are invested in its success to be part of this committee. Previous experience on an ethics committee or Code of Conduct Committee or other experience that might be relevant is also valued but not absolutely required. Must be a generally responsible human. That's, I understand that's objective. That's also in the Kubernetes Code of Conduct requirements. Also demonstration of integrity, professionalism and positive influence in the community or other communities is highly valued. The current proposal for who would elect these representatives is that the TOC would elect all of them. Operationally this is the most simple approach but another option that has been under discussion is having of the three primaries and then the three alternates, the TOC could elect one. TAD contributor strategy could elect one and the maintainers could elect the third set. But note that if we are gonna have multiple bodies electing that creates a lot of operational complexity because what happens if they all three or two out of the three elect the same person? Who's runner up list do you go to next? So there's a lot of operational complexity for gonna do multiple elections at the same time. There's also a question about should there be staggered terms? Staggering is really helpful because it means that when some people cycle off, there's still some people who have institutional knowledge and experience. The CNC of staff members could provide that stability but it's also great if there are community members involved who also have prior experience and can help with continuity. Other ideas that are under discussion are combining staggering and having multiple bodies involved. So maybe it's TOC elects one one year and the next year TAD contributor strategy elects a set and then the next year the maintainers elect a primary and alternate but that probably would only work if everybody is asked to have three year terms. And one thought around the three year term is three years is a long time to ask somebody to serve in a committee but you could ask them to serve as a primary for half that time and then the second half of the time they'd be an alternate. So the time commitment won't be much lower but having alternates who have experience and can step in when necessary is of course very valuable. So there are probably many different iterations of how we elect the community member representatives and we would love your feedback and input on that either in person or email us or comment in GitHub. So the next steps are we're in the comment period for the code of conduct committee charter then the co-chairs will meet and resolve those comments and then there's going to be a final comment period for all the documents and it's really around fine tuning. That's not the time to be proposing like drastic changes to the structure. This is really the period for like fixing typos making sure the chorus references match making sure that there is consistency and alignment across the documents. And then the target date for completion is for the co-chairs to finally as a documents in mid-May and then submit it to the TOC in governing board for ratification in accordance with the CNC of charter. And then sometime in the fall we would be holding elections and launching the new committee structure. And so there are multiple ways to contribute in this final stage. You can open an PR, issue or comment. There is a survey that you can complete if you want to submit feedback anonymously. Only staffs use that and then we can open the PR or issue or comment for you and just say it was submitted anonymously like by a community member. And of course you can share your comments with any of us. So are there questions and comments? I'd like to open it up for discussion. And co-chairs, feel free to also chime in with anything you'd like to add about the process and the journey and what type of feedback we're looking for. I guess I'll just take a moment to thank all the people who have provided feedback thus far. There's been a lot of engagement from a lot of different groups, a lot of different stakeholders. It's very clear that the community cares very much about this process. So if you provided that feedback either publicly in GitHub or privately to myself or one of the other co-chairs, thank you very much for contributing that feedback. I would also just like to thank Dems who was the previous TOC co-chair and served in this capacity for helping drive a lot of the comments and the changes. I'm new to the Code of Conduct Working Group but I am serving on the Interim Code of Conduct Committee so operating off of these procedures today. Yeah, and I think we have met over the last six months what was an idea at Detroit is now sort of an MVP here. I'm quite amazed by the consistency that we have met and the feedback that everybody has provided. What I would love to learn is what do you see is missing? What do you think we are not tackling? We believe we have done a thorough job of being very challenging every document, every step of the way, but what do we think is not tackled by us? Hi, thank you. Justin Capo's a tough project. So I have like a couple of things around this that I'll just kind of toss out in no particular order. As many people may have known, I've raised an issue on the TOC mailing list that had a lot of interaction from different parties that directly relates to a lot of the Code of Conduct problems. And I've actually, one thing that happened as a result of this is a lot of people came up to me privately and told me other stories. And I encourage them to talk about these stories with members of the Code of Conduct Committee. I will say that I could have walked around the entire conference and the only person that I would have been able to see and know was on the Code of Conduct Committee is Emily, because I know Emily. But I would have had no idea any of you are Code of Conduct Committees until I saw a name tag up close or something like that. So one thing I would definitely suggest is to have something, a ribbon, hats, something that people can say, hey, and just come talk to you. And they'll probably want to talk to you in a way that they talk to me, which is more of kind of over a beer thing rather than I want to fill out a form that involves a legal complaint starting. So that's suggestion number one is hats or ribbons or something to more clearly identify yourself so people know to come up to you. Related to- So maybe on that, to clarify, we are the Code of Conduct Committee, Code of Conduct Working Group. The Emily is part of the Code of Conduct Interim Committee. So we are not responsible for handling the actual conduct issues, the committee is, but I think your idea that somehow we identify the Code of Conduct Committee itself, I think it's a wonderful idea. Somebody needs hats or ribbons or something so that people know to come up to you. I just want to clarify the difference between working group and the committee. Okay, so I am still confused on this point now, but it doesn't really matter to what I'm trying to say. A couple of other related things with this is, so there are, there's certainly a perception, like a lot of the stories and things that people have come up to me and talked to me about have also been things like, oh, this company has this track record, not just an individual, but this company is harboring this behavior and this happens. Is that under the purview of this committee? And if not, where is it under the purview and is that something that is considered being to be handled here? Oh, yeah, I've got to. And then I'll, then I'll. Well, so the Code of Conduct Committee, I mean the Code of Conduct addresses behaviors, not attitudes, I guess can you provide me with a hypothetical example? Let's say hypothetically that a company who's a platinum sponsor has a, has members of that company engage in similar behavior that's against CNCF principles and Code of Conduct violations. Can they just keep rotating new people in to projects and just keep getting new strikes against new community members, even though it's the same company doing the same thing or at some point does the Code of Conduct Committee say, you know, we're getting violation after violation against people from company X because they keep doing, you know, something here and the common link is that it's all company X, despite the fact they give us a lot of money. Is this, you know, is there, how does that get addressed? Is that part of this committee or not? Because that is a corner case that might possibly... So I'm going to jump in here a little bit. I think that is certainly something that can be brought to the Code of Conduct Committee moving forward. As far as I'm aware, we do not track company affiliation associated with some of the behaviors, except in very rare circumstances and it's usually because things have escalated. Serving as co-chair for this conference, there are behaviors that I've observed from companies that are culturally embedded within them that are combative and in some cases a little bit more aggressive than what we would welcome within our ecosystem. And when those occur, we, the co-chairs do engage with CNCF staff to help resolve a lot of that conflict. But I've not peeked behind that curtain to understand how that works. I do know that when we make those reports to the foundation, things change. And we receive better behavior either from a new individual that's engaging with us or just generally better responses from that particular organization. It sounds like this is a nice area that we need to call out within the documentation and make sure that it's clear what that process looks like. Because very clearly, we do have a lot of organizations that are heavily invested in the foundation and we want to ensure that they're abiding by our Code of Conduct as well. Another comment that I'll make on that is one part of the Code of Conduct Committee definition that wasn't covered in the slides but is actually in the documents is there is a proposed role for a governing board liaison between the Code of Conduct Committee and the governing board. So that allows for a path of communication where if there are trends, if there is some troubling behavior, like there isn't information from the Code of Conduct Committee, like non-anonymized information is not allowed to be passed to the governing board. That's part of the information sharing policy. But they are allowed to communicate things like trends, statistics, anything that and to make recommendations to the governing board that if the governing board needs to intervene in a particular situation because something is getting out of hand, there is a defined path of communication there to ensure that, again, if community members are coming to the Code of Conduct Committee and saying, hey, I'm seeing something systematic here that may need to be addressed, that Code of Conduct Committee has a communication path to other folks like CNCF staff or the governing board in order to take some other remediation action. And the other thing that I'll point out is like these documents that we are working on and creating right now, they're point in time, like every document that we create. If at some point in the future, a situation arises that is not appropriately addressed by what we have theoretically come up with today, there is still room for the governing board, the Code of Conduct Committee to revise their own documents and to be like, hey, we need to revise things in order to address a situation that we couldn't come up with an idea that would happen today. Okay, and I just have really quick, very minor things that probably don't need a lot of back and forth, but there are a lot of legal requirements for certain other people who things are disclosed to to do a lot of reporting around this. Like certainly, if a student comes to me or someone that works for me, tells me of an incident, even if it happens here at an event or something like it, I have a legal requirement in many cases to report. And so that's, I assume that that's covered under some of what's discussed here, but there are gonna be a lot of complexities in situations like that because very quickly, like New York State and the federal government and others in the US will get involved, even if an incident happens here in beautiful Amsterdam. So I'm sure you're, you know, being a lawyer, I'm sure you've covered all this. Well, we're not going to, I mean, there is a lot of complexity and I mean, if you have a legal obligation report, I mean, what these procedures define is how you go about submitting that report and then what our responsibility is after that as a committee and staff, but it's not going to tell you what you're, because every person is going to be in a unique situation. Some people don't have legal reporting obligations, right? It depends on jurisdiction, depends on what your job is. Okay, and the final thing is that coming from the side of submitting these reports and things, it was extremely helpful to have fairly constant, fairly repeated feedback different members of the community who did this reporting. And I want to applaud that and say, if anything, feel free to do that even more frequently because that is, you know, from that side of it, that side of it, you know, I'm just collecting and passing information along, but the fact that you feel like you've said something and nothing is happening is a horrible feeling. And so to hear like, we're still working on it, this is happening, this is happening, this is happening is really valuable to the people who have done the reporting. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, thank you. And to also address your question about trends or if there's a particular, you know, organization that seems to be, you see some cultural issues that are showing up in how they participate in the community. So when I comment a little bit on like philosophy and theories of justice here, this is something I'm very proud of that's represented in our work. We actually have, in our incident resolution procedures, we've identified that restorative justice and transformative justice are approaches that we want to seek in addition to the more traditional remedies. And Colleen, who we've engaged as our onsite event ombudsperson, she's also available in between events for to accept reports and to facilitate restorative justice conversations and outcomes. You know, we're just so thrilled to have her here. There are, so I'm just gonna summarize what that means. So traditional remedies are like, you know, somebody suspended or they're given a warning or they're beyond from the community or our leadership privileges revoked for some period of time, right? Or there's, you know, a public or private reprimand. And then some restorative justice outcomes. I mean, Colleen can expand on what that could look like. There's so many different shapes to restorative justice, but that's often a facilitated dialogue to for healing and resolution between the person who engaged in the behavior that was harmful and the people that were impacted by that. So it's really about the parties involved in the incident. And then there is transformative justice, which looks at the broader system that contributed to the harm. So like, were there systemic issues that contributed to this bad behavior? Maybe their cultural, maybe leadership is modeling bad behavior and that's contributing to it. Maybe we're not publicizing what the standards of conduct are well enough. Maybe there are policy gaps and people are like, abusing policies or processes or lack. Maybe there's governance gaps and people are, the governance isn't clear and people are abusing the lack of clear governance, right? Those are all systemic issues that doesn't mean that somebody who engaged in bad behavior should be excused from it, but let's not just address that incident, right? If there are ways that we as a community can improve our processes, policies, culture to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future, that's really important work too. So our incident resolution procedures outline that that is something that the committee is going to look at and that they will escalate to the appropriate body with recommendations when they have those. Any other questions? Richard from an outfit called Uview. I was wondering sort of two oddly related questions. You said you were going philosophical, so let's try it. How do you handle the multiple different sort of sovereign jurisdictions that are gonna be relevant here because it strikes me that the complexity is huge. I mean, for example, did you know that hearsay of multiple degrees is admissible in English civil courts, right? There's a certain little shock Americans, right? And related to that, what's the trust model here? If you've got a situation where you have, the legal backstop is the backstop, you're like, right, I can take action. We don't have to agree on the rules here. We can go get this decided elsewhere, right? There's a lot of risk to the complainant there. Reputationally, lots of soft consequences and we're used to handling trust as a technical problem. Attempts at zero trust frameworks, nuclear diplomacy, anyone, right? Have been tried in the past. This is a really, really tough problem to solve. And I wondered, I think there's quite enough meat there, right? How do you relate the many different jurisdictions, the different ideas of fairness and justice that come out of that and problems of trust when you have a complainant versus a defendant? At least from my view and my experience, like we're creating our own jurisdiction here. We're creating our own community within the CNCF. That jurisdiction does overlap with a lot of different other jurisdictions, like you have lots of different countries all over the world that are participating and are coming from different legal backgrounds and even setting the legal questions aside, different cultures. There's different cultural norms across all the different countries and participants. You can even see that reflected in these conferences, the differences between the North America and EU conferences, we're going back to Shanghai this year. Like as we're holding these live events in different places, there are again different cultural norms around the world. Our goal though is to set the tone for what do we want in our community? This is a journey of self-definition for us to make sure that we uphold our values as the CNCF community that no matter what your background is, what country you're coming from, that this is a safe, open, inclusive and diverse place to contribute to our ecosystem. Where that intersects with the legalities and that kind of stuff, that I'll leave for Joanne if she wants to make any comments there. Like the Code of Conduct Committee through the CNCF staff like does have access to like lawyers and that kind of stuff. Like if we need to bring in other consultants, we can. But the ultimate goal for us, and as Joanne was saying when we were talking about like restorative justice, transformative justice in addition to more traditional incident resolution procedures, the goal there is to define that we want our community to be healthy. We want a community that everybody feels safe participating in. And it's up to us to kind of define what that looks like. And it's also up to us to make sure that we hold ourselves accountable to the values that we define. Yeah, I'll comment on a few different areas where trust I think is really, really important. You know, one is trust that the process is fair, right? And that's why we have such extensive documentation now, right, providing transparency to what that process looks like. There are a conflict resolution, there is a conflict of interest, very clear guidelines around what conflict of interest procedures are and recusals. And so that's setting up a fair process. There's also trust in the people who are upholding that process. And so having elected representatives, being evaluated by a due to occasion body that consists of your peers, I think is part of that as well. And then there's also, concerns around safe reporting and anonymity and confidentiality. And so for that reason, we have multiple paths for reporting, right? Somebody could email conduct at cncf.io, but that goes to everybody in the committee. And if some of those people have a conflict of interest, somebody may not be comfortable reporting that way. So you can also go to an individual committee member and say, hey, I wanna report this, but could you share the details of the incident, but not my identity as a reporter with the rest of the committee? They can also go to staff member and request that anonymity. They can also go to Colleen, who's an external consultant, who's not employed by the Linux Foundation as another source. And that adds yet another buffer around the confidentiality and anonymity. So we purposely structured it to really create a lot of safe options for reporting. So does that help address some of your questions around trust? Yeah, it does. And I don't wanna establish a massive turn for it because you've gone for a long time because it's so complicated. I thought that the big point was community health, in a way, material interest binds and is inescapable and is a reality because I think that the difference between structuring interests to foster trust and having sort of a formal process where you give accounts, those are two very different processes. I don't know if anybody's had the experience of sitting in some kind of training that's supposedly for fairness or justice or diversity and thinking this doesn't make any sense. Why am I doing this? And it suddenly makes a lot more sense when you realize that somebody has done a list of the training courses they've done. Put them in a bit of paper, put it in a filing cabinet and that comes out when you go to court. That's all it is, right? It's just a paper trial and it results in strange and often nonsensical experiences. Yeah, it's tricky. There are ways to, it's a matter of engineering aligning interests in fairness because otherwise, conversations enter a strange realm where what we're purportedly talking about, the point is not the conversation, the point is providing evidence to do something else because I'm not really talking to you about what I really think. So, now I'll put it out there, I'll give the microphone back. Any other questions? How many of you have reviewed the content with the GitHub repo? We would love, we would really love for you to review it as we are trying to wrap up the process. So give us feedback, tell us what is missing. Bring out the content, it's like what can we do to improve confidentiality? What can we do to build more trust? What can we do to make the process more just? I would also add on to that, that increasing the understanding between community members is essential to this. There are often times where there are individuals who believe very strongly that an interaction that they had is in violation of the code of conduct. And in some cases that is entirely accurate and it's up to the code of conduct committee to evaluate that and understand that. But not all the time. Sometimes there are occurrences and interactions within the community that don't quite meet that violation bar. But that doesn't mean that we don't act upon it. We take those opportunities to engage with the individual that was reported upon, to provide them the opportunity of understanding and learning and how their behavior was perceived by another individual. And in some cases that's also reaching back out to the reporter to have a conversation and a discussion with them about how we viewed that behavior collectively as a community and as a committee body. That way everybody is well-informed, expectations are being set, and that we can make adjustments or improvements moving forward for those kinds of processes. To date, this doesn't happen very often and it's not something I think that is talked about often enough because not everything is a violation, but everything is an opportunity to increase other individuals' awareness of their surroundings, the different cultures and personalities that they interact with, and how they might clash with each other. While teaching techniques, tactics, and potentially tips for engaging with people that come from a different background than you, how do you engage in that level of discussion with them? What are the best word choices that you can make and what is the tonality in written form because a lot of our communication is asynchronous and while you intend to be brief, it can sometimes come off as curt or rude. So those are some of the things that we try to engage in when things don't quite meet that bar. And this is also not, it's new. Like we're talking about this in the context of like we're creating a new code of conduct body at the CNCF, but it's not new in the sense of like these values have been around for a while in the CNCF. And the work, this type of work, these type of discussions have been held in different capacities, sometimes less formal. These are a lot of the inputs to what we're doing right now came from the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee that's been operating for years. We want to, the goal with this is to, number one, write a bunch of stuff down and code stuff so that there's common expectations. Everybody knows what the procedure is going to be as well as refine them for the cloud native community in 2023. Like what does the cloud native community look like right now? What are the needs of the cloud native community in 2023? And keep wondering, as I mentioned earlier, like these are going to be living documents. They encode a point in time right now as the community evolves and changes and grows as we learn new ways to resolve these kinds of incidents in a better way. We're going to go back and revisit these, but we want to seek as much feedback as we can right now in order to do the best that we can. Yeah, and I also just wanted to, this also addresses a question you had earlier about confusion around working group and Code of Conduct Committee. So for those of you who weren't around when this was announced, so there is currently an interim Code of Conduct Committee that has procedures very similar to the ones that the working group has been producing. So a lot of these procedures have been tested by the Interim Code of Conduct Committee. So the Interim Code of Conduct Committee was stood up roughly 10, 11 months ago to resolve incidents while we're developing them a permanent structure. So when this working group's work is completed and their elections and the new permanent Code of Conduct Committee is established, they will replace the Interim Committee and that committee will be disbanded. Yeah, and a couple of hands are up. And then you. You were in that before. I was just gonna mention that some actions are, I think, clearly things that the community would not want, but are harder to specify a red line about. For instance, if someone comes and just opens an issue and we don't spot it or other things are going on, that's one thing. If there's an insular community that just ignores everyone else who wants to participate and just silences people and refuses to, you know, let them participate in a project, that I think is clearly like, you know, not something that it feels like it should be a Code of Conduct violation. And so how do you view handling those kind of situations where there's clearly hostility? Maybe I have a business reason why I don't want certain people to participate in my project. And so I'm just gonna try to shut out others or things like that. That's very against CNCF values, but isn't currently strictly forbidden by this policy. How does that get handled? So that's actually, we have a little bit of that in here about referring and recommendations to other bodies about some of these things that are going on. In particular, when situations like that occur and it's been active discussion over the past year or so that the Interim Code of Conduct Committee has been stood up is we are looking at making some changes and clarifying the responsibilities of an individual in any leadership position within the foundation. Up until this point, we have not done a good enough job expressing what those values and leadership roles are because when you take on a leadership position in any open source community, but especially in cloud native, you are acting in an authoritarian role over your community members. And that means to a lot of people that they have power, but that's not really what it is. You're in service to the community and that is something that we are trying to entrench in every single individual that takes on one of those roles or individuals that are interested in moving into those positions. As TOC chair, I've just had a conversation with several governing board members this past week about potentially providing training opportunities for individuals in leadership positions to set them up for success. Because what we don't wanna have happen is those individuals get into a position and go with their gut instinct, which is against the values that we hold for leaders. Yeah, there is some work really, there's work being done on refining and publicizing, communicating, like refreshing like what are the CNCF values and what are the principles that leaders of all leaders in the community need to adhere to. There are still some questions around, like if somebody violates the CNCF values, values around openness, transparency, vendor neutrality, et cetera, inclusivity, inclusive leadership, et cetera, like what's the path for resolution of that? Is that through the Code of Conduct Committee? Is that through the TOC? Is that through TAC Contribute Strategy? So there are some details around the actual enforcement that still need to be worked out, but I think the first step is getting very clearly communicated what are the principles and the values that we all need to adhere to in a special leadership. And one last comment before we move to the next question that I wanna say is like the various leadership groups that we have within the community and within the foundation, they care about that problem. And while we can say right now we have work to do as far as improving what those processes look like, the Code of Conduct Committee is like just one prong of that, like it will also be the TOC, it'll be the governing board, it'll be staff, it'll be all the different tags that are reviewing and working with all these projects, like all of those different bodies are working, or the goal is for them to all work together to that end that we are upholding our values and that we're displaying them, practicing them ourselves as we interact with all the various projects in the community. And yeah, I do wanna address your question of course, but I also just wanna comment that wherever the enforcement of that eventually is going to live, I will say that having had recent experiences through the Interim Code of Conduct Committee and work that Colleen has been doing, there is value in having some of these things that aren't necessarily clear violations go through the Code of Conduct Committee process because TOC members are like, they have a lot on their plates, right? And so having somebody like Colleen who has such a great background in restorative justice, in conflict resolution, et cetera, take the time to interview people one-in-one, gather feedback, collate that feedback, come back with a set of recommendations, have really taken the time to just set, like an individual TOC member is not gonna have time to conduct a dozen interviews and then review tons of evidence and then be like, oh, okay, oh, clearly there are these three principles that are lacking in our current documentation, but we have support to help us do that and the Code of Conduct Committee has those access to those, it's set up now to have those types of resources and so there can be a closer look with a higher touch through the Code of Conduct Committee, even if it's not the Code of Conduct Committee that ultimately is the one who like actually like implements the solution. Daniel. You kind of answered my question in the back and forth that happened after that, but I will say that as the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee, we spend an enormous amount of time doing the same kind of work of just like going and talking to people, hearing from new contributors who have a bad time and then we go and work with SIG leads to go and like make things better when we come. It's a huge amount of work though, so I'm glad you now have Colleen. I have spent like 30 hours outside of my like a regular day job some weeks on that, so. Yeah. It's a heavy list. Glad we have you now. Any further questions? We have about five minutes or so left. Daniel, would you mind passing to Colleen? Hello everyone. I just want to say that I deeply appreciate the work that's being done and I think it's a really important part of a community for community members to recognize that they're co-creative agents in living the values of the Code of Conduct. And so it's an opportunity for mutual learning for saying, well, what is diversity in action? And we always say in conflict resolution that leadership is not a title, it's a behavior. And so our way of being and acting is always in a dance with what is occurring and what occurs may occur differently for me than it occurs for someone else. So I also think that the Code of Conduct has an opportunity for all of us to really open up our perceptual lenses and be in a discovery mode of communication of what does it mean in practical real terms to live these values and to be open to having spaces to talk about this. Because the other thing is that we want to recognize that conflict is a normal part of the human experience. And so what's really going on when we have these push-pull dynamics with people and what is it that we can actualize as a community principle of moving into resolution and pathways of resolution that aren't punitive but where there's mutual learning. So I think that's one of the lived values of diversity is that an inclusion is that we're different. And so how do we lean in when we're different and actually come into commonality and basically join in the best of our humanity and live into the potential of these values that we all speak to, but to actually live them. We're about three minutes. I have about time for one more question if anybody has anything burning. Tells me we did a good job so far. So the call to action then. We have right now, there's one document that's like active revision that's our code of conduct, committee description and charter. There are the artifacts of like the other documents that we've been working on. If there are comments on really any of these right now, you can, the primary place to go and like view the work that's being done right now is on GitHub on the working group COC repository. There's discussions in there so you can like look at what's been discussed so far, some of the feedback that we've received from various stakeholders, what we've done as far as trying to triage and resolve that feedback. There's open PRs right now for that description and charter that again is open for active comment. If you find anything that's like interest, you wanna leave a comment, you can either do it there publicly or come track down one of us and have a conversation. I think that's where a lot of, I would say some of the most valuable feedback that I've had has been in those conversations where someone comes with like maybe an incomplete thought and wants to like flush out, okay what does this actually mean in practice? How do we get some of these, sometimes fuzzier concepts down to writing? Can you tell people again where to be able to go find that? So there's probably gonna be a link in the slides when we post this, but also I just wanted to make sure. github.com slash cncf slash working wg-coc or there's a Slack channel on the, that one. See that was a lot, that's all I wanted to be like, hey where are we going? Perfect. Thank you. You can also find us on cncf and kubernetes Slack if you have trouble with github or you just wanna be anonymous in your feedback where our DMs are open. I've talked to a lot of community members about these kinds of things. So if you're interested or you wanna have a discussion on it or you wanna understand what the impact is, we're all here. We're listening. We wanna make sure that this works for everyone. Or as you were saying, talk to any one of us here or remotely. Thank you everyone for coming. Thank you. Thanks everyone.