-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
Code of Ethics Review Committee Protocol
The purpose of this document is to establish a timeline and standard for updating and reviewing the community-led guidelines established for data science practitioners in the Data for Democracy Code of Ethics initiative. This is done to keep the living document, its guidelines and intent, relevant to the changes within the larger data science community.
The community-elected review committee will convene twice a year (using in-person and online means) to review and approve changes to the code of ethics. Sub-committees will also be convened as needed to assist the primary review committee in their tasks (nominated or elected - TBD).
Changes should be submitted by anyone via pull request on GitHub. This will ensure contributors attribution for their ideas towards the larger community effort and provides and efficient manner for reviewers and contributors to coordinate during the yearly review sessions.
A panel of review members will be elected ahead of time by the Data for Democracy community (number of members - TBD)(voting time period - TBD). Once the review panel members are elected, they will then set the time and location of the meeting.
The panel will review all the pull requests and grievances in order to assemble a ballot. The ballot of eligible changes will be submitted to the Data for Democracy community for their comment (comment period TBD).
The panel will then take the comments, adjust the language of the potential changes, and assemble a final ballot for vote of inclusion to the existing Code of Ethics (voting period TBD). The votes will be a "yes/no" option; greatest number determines the outcome for each potential revision.
Once the voting period ends, votes are tallied and revisions can be made to the Code of Ethics.
If for any reason the community feels the procedure is unfair or unethical, they may file formal complaints via a GitHub Issue to ethical-resources repository in addition to their pull request addressing the issue. These will be public record of the grievance. It will be the duty of the following review panel to account for these and to make a determination on any redaction/change to be added to the next set of revisions.