From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FDA1F463 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:13:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2436891AbfIXONo (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:13:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com ([209.85.221.66]:43057 "EHLO mail-wr1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726441AbfIXONo (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:13:44 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id q17so2134267wrx.10 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gpSnS5J/Z8Gg4zsBsbbNBiDZYAymdmUQXDxWgjaQTJg=; b=nJ1UP+BRR1MJm1gkHeLisvLuhSlYZ5WUT7d4qJ9/K3Rvq1XZO5dDchEZtObO+XtqMB p/7lIdPBIm8MoiTlfiDQYgIpO5eH5Xex2QDs/gcrADMLFK5Tppjg/edWFNd2SGUqgvSN n+yJYkgMDOIM7VHilgfaFZfLAoVLhezwU4Caw/uNM3XQxc2rEDjdJRUismh/Y7nEpnt8 iIpRFjDMSgfBPMN84YT/8iO9CdOnfhnjuqGY1xSWfuVmy9WDaYIqSF2l/VGSNZfA1Gq8 gV6FP6SdB33vSNpBZW0b8Iggtl90/i8VZxWqt3cf0YohbdHi4SZWpUxWQWWhxceMJWQv ygtA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gpSnS5J/Z8Gg4zsBsbbNBiDZYAymdmUQXDxWgjaQTJg=; b=avQ7XhCNrn99jYrLbuHU/duKh/G2qyjhazs9P4I+Bh1Q2XQ3Y+jm6SetZ3yjTSus5D Vlg/Lx0r6qs2ZLKj9sq97QpXwEsqXhqTe+MQnN2KvjYvIMXTeOXIar8PNVMllG/WX0um YiIuxZlkZm4Vvv/nLP2A0oZ1AwX//SJ2/sbvF8cDyEiSYvy3ZcxXSeP8hb9iMo7C6EvU yJ2Jj6Xyu5+H+kT5ZBQE8Uf7IDplneWEDkba+ck0x7oxPgIrIl6aw3BBbtasH273KMFt g2jwIyFm7u+hKoMYmHr56d+1IDdtTyp3UARuXokKYBsQhdR51OgSrCaGKPFLta7s1C5t +ysw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVXCZ4U2oOW5aeD/SI71LLGxN/ZBbCecTmIliTBUmOOGCXZmlDi 6y3t2tX9tC2LwCCHh05T3UpIewZO X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyIw4+oibZ3VWn3+ffqVzwzE41WOY41wBmGv8YcBKdcue/yO2OCnRpp1UlNl6nzJe99zbybKw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:eb4d:: with SMTP id u13mr2690767wrn.224.1569334420880; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.240] (host-92-22-10-31.as13285.net. [92.22.10.31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u83sm3205889wme.0.2019.09.24.07.13.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a Code of Conduct document To: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org Cc: git@sfconservancy.org, Derrick Stolee , Emily Shaffer , Jonathan Nieder , Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , garimasigit@gmail.com References: <20190924064454.GA30419@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Phillip Wood Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:13:38 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190924064454.GA30419@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB-large Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Peff On 24/09/2019 07:44, Jeff King 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 I think these are all good points, it is definitely better to discuss this when there isn't a pressing problem to resolve. > 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. Using an existing text makes sense, even more so if it is being successfully used by git for windows > > 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. I think this is a sensible approach - it needs to be clear that there is a mechanism to deal with violations otherwise there's no point to having a CoC but we don't want to get bogged down by a whole sequence of what if someone does this that or the other. I think the text below does a good job of setting out expectations without being too long Best Wishes Phillip > Signed-off-by: Jeff King > --- > 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. > > I've cc'd git@sfconservancy.org here, because I think it's important for > all of the project committee members to endorse it (and because the > document puts us on the hook for enforcing it!). > > CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > > diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..b94f72b0b8 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ > +# Git Code of Conduct > + > +This code of conduct outlines our expectations for participants within > +the Git community, as well as steps for reporting unacceptable behavior. > +We are committed to providing a welcoming and inspiring community for > +all and expect our code of conduct to be honored. Anyone who violates > +this code of conduct may be banned from the community. > + > +## Our Pledge > + > +In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as > +contributors and maintainers pledge to make participation in our project and > +our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, > +body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and > +expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, > +nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and > +orientation. > + > +## Our Standards > + > +Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment > +include: > + > +* Using welcoming and inclusive language > +* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > +* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > +* Focusing on what is best for the community > +* Showing empathy towards other community members > + > +Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > + > +* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or > + advances > +* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > +* Public or private harassment > +* Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic > + address, without explicit permission > +* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > + professional setting > + > +## Our Responsibilities > + > +Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable > +behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in > +response to any instances of unacceptable behavior. > + > +Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or > +reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions > +that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or > +permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, > +threatening, offensive, or harmful. > + > +## Scope > + > +This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces, and it also applies > +when an individual is representing the project or its community in public > +spaces. Examples of representing a project or community include using an > +official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, > +or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. > +Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project > +maintainers. > + > +## Enforcement > + > +Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be > +reported by contacting the project team at git@sfconservancy.org. All > +complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response > +that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project > +team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of > +an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > +separately. > + > +Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good > +faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other > +members of the project's leadership. > + > +## Attribution > + > +This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage], > +version 1.4, available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html > + > +[homepage]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org > + > +For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see > +https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq >