Re: [PATCH] add a Code of Conduct document

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 5:42 PM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
> We've never had a formally written Code of Conduct document. Though it
> has been discussed off and on over the years, for the most part the
> behavior on the mailing list has been good enough that nobody felt the
> need to push one forward.
>
> However, even if there aren't specific problems now, it's a good idea to
> have a document:
>
>   - it puts everybody on the same page with respect to expectations.
>     This might avoid poor behavior, but also makes it easier to handle
>     it if it does happen.
>
>   - it publicly advertises that good conduct is important to us and will
>     be enforced, which may make some people more comfortable with
>     joining our community
>
>   - it may be a good time to cement our expectations when things are
>     quiet, since it gives everybody some distance rather than focusing
>     on a current contentious issue
>
> This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed
> to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted
> language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations
> and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document
> used by the Git for Windows project.
>
> The text is taken mostly verbatim from:
>
>   https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html
>
> I also stole a very nice introductory paragraph from the Git for Windows
> version of the file.
>
> There are a few subtle points, though:
>
>   - the document refers to "the project maintainers". For the code, we
>     generally only consider there to be one maintainer: Junio C Hamano.
>     But for dealing with community issues, it makes sense to involve
>     more people to spread the responsibility. I've listed the project
>     committee address of git@sfconservancy.org as the contact point.
>
>   - the document mentions banning from the community, both in the intro
>     paragraph and in "Our Responsibilities". The exact mechanism here is
>     left vague. I can imagine it might start with social enforcement
>     (not accepting patches, ignoring emails) and could escalate to
>     technical measures if necessary (asking vger admins to block an
>     address). It probably make sense _not_ to get too specific at this
>     point, and deal with specifics as they come up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> Obviously related to the discussion in:
>
>   https://public-inbox.org/git/71fba9e7-6314-6ef9-9959-6ae06843d17a@gmail.com/
>
> After some poking around at various CoC options, this one seemed like
> the best fit to me. But I'm open to suggestions or more discussion. It
> seems to me that the important piece is having _some_ CoC, and picking
> something standard-ish seems a safe bet.
>
> I did find this nice set of guidelines in an old discussion:
>
>   https://github.com/mhagger/git/commit/c6e6196be8fab3d48b12c4e42eceae6937538dee
>
> I think it's missing some things that are "standard" in more modern CoCs
> (in particular, there's not much discussion of enforcement or
> responsibilities, and I think those are important for the "making people
> comfortable" goal). But maybe there are bits we'd like to pick out for
> other documents; not so much "_what_ we expect" as "here are some tips
> on _how_".
>
> If people are on board with this direction, it might be fun to pick up a
> bunch of "Acked-by" trailers from people in the community who agree with
> it. It might give it more weight if many members have publicly endorsed
> it.

Acked-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>

(including the small update you sent elsewhere to individually list
the members of project leader team.)