Re: Raise your hand to Ack jk/code-of-conduct if your Ack fell thru cracks

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18:53AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:

> > The project leadership team can be contacted by email as a whole at
> > git@sfconservancy.org, or individually:
> > 
> >   - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
> >   - Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
> >   - Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> >   - Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> 
> All folks that have proven to exhibit good judgement in the past,
> and hope they continue to exhibit that in the future.

I snipped your concerns with some of the language. I do agree with you
that a lot of is open to interpretation. But I also think it's
impossible to get it 100% airtight. My feeling was that it was a good
idea to go with some existing, well-established text, even if it has
some wiggle room. And then rely on the existing community and especially
the people listed above to do that interpretation.

So...

> Just pointing out some concerns of mine.  No ack from me
> (but it's not a NACK, either).  I'm pretty ambivalent...

For me it is obviously an ack, but I wanted to make clear that I think
your concerns (and those of others who spoke up, like René and Gábor)
are certainly _valid_. I just think that adopting this CoC is, while not
perfect, the least-bad option.

I'd also say that we might consider living with it for a while (6
months? a year?) and seeing if people have an interest in revising it
after that point based on experience.

This is the same text used by the kernel, btw.  I think somebody
mentioned to me (but I think it may have been off-list) that the kernel
has an "interpretation" document:

  https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.html

which clarifies a few terms with respect to that specific community. I
didn't feel that we particularly needed to do that for our community,
but if somebody wants to work up a clarifying document, I'd be happy to
review it.

-Peff