You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
To me, the CfA Code of Conduct seems full of confusing, verbose, and negative legalese. It feels more like an SAT comprehension test than a visionary and welcoming public document. On the other end of the spectrum, I find Exercism's CoC very clear and approachable.
I don't want to word-smith for it's own sake, but I think two of the most important features of a Code of Conduct (besides the content) are its clarity and readability.
So, I was wondering has CfA ever tested this document against real users?
How do they feel after reading it?
Do they feel welcome and know what to expect (particularly if they're part of a protected class)?
What are their impressions of the organization after reading it?
Do they feel confident enforcing this code of conduct (particularly if they're a leader)?
Can they accurately identify violations when quizzed with example situations?
Those are just some ideas of how to measure the document's effectiveness. A bonus of measuring effectiveness is that it could help us make purposeful improvements without pointless word-smithing.
I'm also thinking about doing an unconference workshop to hack on the CoC together at the upcoming 2018 Brigade Congress, so contact me if you're interested (tim | codefornashville.org).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Tim, thanks for your feedback. I look forward to meeting you at Congress and chatting about this -- I think we are all in agreement that there is a lot of room for improvement here, especially by learning from best practices in the four years since this document was originally penned.
One thing to note, is that although the document itself has changed little over time, we have been working to improve response procedures and improving training of Staff, NAC, and Brigade leaders to handle CoC situations. This is not really something that would be visible in the CoC text but is something to think about, since it affects the big picture goals.
Anyway, see you at Congress. Maybe we can come up with some next steps there.
To me, the CfA Code of Conduct seems full of confusing, verbose, and negative legalese. It feels more like an SAT comprehension test than a visionary and welcoming public document. On the other end of the spectrum, I find Exercism's CoC very clear and approachable.
I don't want to word-smith for it's own sake, but I think two of the most important features of a Code of Conduct (besides the content) are its clarity and readability.
So, I was wondering has CfA ever tested this document against real users?
Those are just some ideas of how to measure the document's effectiveness. A bonus of measuring effectiveness is that it could help us make purposeful improvements without pointless word-smithing.
I'm also thinking about doing an unconference workshop to hack on the CoC together at the upcoming 2018 Brigade Congress, so contact me if you're interested (tim | codefornashville.org).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: