Thanks Ken and Chris,
A couple of observations:
1.
For Chris and others without access to the wiki, if I’m not mistaken the Group Participation Agreement that got you onto this email list should also grant you rights to access
the IDPro space on the wiki. Let me know if I should share a draft of the CoC with the email list, but I’m trying to avoid having stale static copies of the draft on the list if we can collaborate on the wiki.
2.
To Ken’s point, here’s the
ACM Code for reference.
-
Scott
From:
<dg-idpro-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Ken Dagg <kendaggtbs@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 9:03 PM
To: Chris Phillips <Chris.Phillips@canarie.ca>, "dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org" <dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [DG-IDPro] Reminder: Kantara ID Pro Code of Conduct Meeting today 2pm ET
I, like many others, have been lurking on this conversation. I debated whether or not to say what follows and finally decided that I needed to express my opinion.
To set some context, I have always tried to live my life in a manner that treats all people, regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, ethnicity, etc, as equals with the right to express their opinion and have it heard. In addition I have
also tried to proactively expose bias and discrimination for what they are.
This being said, I have had concerns with the conversation in some of the email threads associated with the Code of Conduct. I strongly believe that the problems of non inclusion as evidenced by biased or discriminatory actions MUST not
be condoned by ID professionals either in their actions or in the solutions they develop. However, I do not believe that the ID profession can, or should, set the bar on basic human rights. Rather, I believe ID professionals should affirm their belief in basic
human rights.
To me, the email threads have seemed like participants wanted the Code of Conduct to have specifics to address challenges like these that, in my opinion, go beyond the specifics of a professional in the Identity Space. To that point, I
agree with Chris concerning focus or, as a corollary, not trying to solve all the world's issues in the Code of Conduct. I would suggest rather that, as part of implementing of the Code of Conduct, a peer review process needs to be established to deal with
violations. That is the mechanism, in my opinion, that should address unethical behaviours such as bias and discrimination. It is also important to establish oversight of this peer review process, and of those involved in conducting it, in order to ensure
that the process does not overlook, ignore, or even condone unethical behaviour.
I also agree fully with others concerning the need for brevity and simplicity in stating the Code of Conduct. Those features, as evidenced by the longevity of the ACM code, lead to a lasting solution that stands the test of time.
Ken
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Chris Phillips <Chris.Phillips@canarie.ca> wrote: