<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8"> <style> div.markdown { white-space: normal; } body { font-family: sans-serif; } h1 { font-size: 1.4em; } h2 { font-size: 1.2em; } h3 { font-size: 1.1em; } blockquote { margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777; } blockquote blockquote { border-left-color: #999999; color: #999999; } blockquote blockquote blockquote { border-left-color: #BBBBBB; color: #BBBBBB; } blockquote a { color: #777777; } blockquote blockquote a { color: #999999; } blockquote blockquote blockquote a { color: #BBBBBB; } math[display="inline"] > mrow { padding:5px; } div.footnotes li p { margin: 0.2em 0; } </style> </head> <body> <div class="markdown"> On 29 Jul 2019, at 10:24, Amanda Gowland wrote: <blockquote> Would it help if I went over the documentation that Sasha has sent through and draft a proposal/call for volunteers/scope for a CoC Team to review now? </blockquote> That got away too quickly. To be perfectly clear: It is best to first write up what the role of members of theâ€œenforcement committeeâ€ exactly is, specifically the powers to take action. I am also fine with making proposals about how we select people for these roles. Personally I would be happy for the Chair to appoint them for an initial period after a separate call for volunteers. This is fine for the first iteration. I do not think that a beauty contest is appropriate here. Colling for volunteers is next. I do not think we have finished the discussion about the Code of Conduct text either. It has the â€œenforcement committeeâ€ built in. So we can either split this into two docs or keep it in one. But we have to discuss both and get community consensus on the whole package. I do not care either way. Only after we have consensus do we call for volunteers. Once we have consensus the doc(s) should be published as ripe documents. Daniel </div> </body> </html>