<!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 the“enforcement committee” 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 “enforcement committee” 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>