# OpenJS Foundation Code of Conduct WG - 2020-08-13

**Attendees:**
- Jory
- Divy
- Sendil Kumar
- Michael Dawson
- Ben Michel
- Rachel Romoff
- Myles Borins
- Jordan Harband
- Robin Ginn
- Joe Sepi
- Brian Warner
-
**Agenda:**

1) [#8](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/code-of-conduct/issues/8) - Clarification of the meaning & purpose of escalation path requirement
* **Escalation Path Proposed Resolution**
* A) The foundation may establish CoC requirements of OpenJSF projects in addition to the requirement to adopt the foundation CoC.
* B) Projects are responsible for moderating their own communities & have the ability to implement the moderation protocols that best fit their group and needs.
* C) Foundation CoC support exists:
* to aid or augment Project CoC Moderation groups at their request
* to provide a report escalation path for victims/reporters following [our policy](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/master/HANDLING_CODE_OF_CONDUCT_REPORTS.md)
* to provide a secure communication channel between the foundation and a project CoC team about specific infraction reports
* D) Foundation CoC support does not exist to provide an appeals process for violators of a project's CoC.
* Next Steps
2. Other Issues
* Close [#3](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/code-of-conduct/issues/3)?
* Merge PR [#2](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/code-of-conduct/pull/2)?
* Surfacing project reporting emails: [#1](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/code-of-conduct/issues/1) - [PR added all reporting emails to the CoC](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/pull/515)

**Notes**

#8
* Jory provides overview of proposal.
* Discussion of separating concerns - ensuring group who does policy is not the same group who does enforcement.
* Agreement seems to be that this distinction exists between CoC WG and CoC Panel
* Discussion about sharing of information on reports or violations in "common" situations, e.g. Events
* Implicit & Explicit information sharing
* Escalation - Brian reports that there’s an escalation path to a single person at the Linux Foundation (in the case of unincorporated projects, Mike Dolan)
The final escalation in the default policy is to one person, but there’s always an escalation.
* Questions we would like to answer in the future
* Guidance about information sharing - how research, decisions, and other things are handled regarding reports
* Are there carveouts? E.G. Criminal activity at Events.
* Guidance on retention of reporting data
* ACTIONS
* Document points from proposal above - PR to existing text of CoC & internal document
* Record Questions as issues for further policy discussion
* Update (slightly) CoC to reflect agreement on #8

#3
- Ensure the CoCP documentation and actual panel match
- Document which 'constituency' each person represents
- MD to make a proposal

#2
- OK to Merge

#515
- OK to Merge
- Follow Action: Ensure projects include their addresses in the document moving forward