On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:44:54AM -0400, 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 > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx> > --- > Obviously related to the discussion in: > > https://public-inbox.org/git/71fba9e7-6314-6ef9-9959-6ae06843d17a@xxxxxxxxx/ > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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!). I tried looking it up but I couldn't find who the project committee members are. Is this list published anywhere? More on that later... > > 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 Since this is a mailing list-based project, we should explicitly state that email addresses and names don't count as private information since it's vital for discourse. On that note, I like the idea of having a CoC-interpretations document, much like the one in the Linux kernel[1]. In my opinion, having one would remove a lot of the vagueness (such as the emails issue) in the CoC and close us off from people loophole lawyering over the language used. > +* 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 Since we use patches here, we should probably explicitly state that too. > +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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 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. I feel uncomfortable with this being left so wide open. First of all, I know that the power *probably* won't be abused but I don't think probably is good enough. As I said above, I couldn't find a public list of the people who were on the project committee. Perhaps that's because my Googling skills are bad but I feel uncomfortable knowing that *anyone* will be given judge, jury and executioner power, let alone people whom I don't know anything about. I'm okay with leaving it open for now but I think I would be a lot more comfortable if we had the interpretations document to close up the vagueness later. Thanks for starting the discussion, Denton [1]: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst > + > +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 > -- > 2.23.0.763.g3828a6cd7f >
