> > 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... To be honest, I'm a little worried about it too. What if I have a problem with someone on the project committee? What if I have a problem with someone I don't know is on the project committee? I helped my other FOSS project to adopt a Code of Conduct earlier in the year (https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md) and we got around this by asking for volunteers from the technical steering committee to agree to have their contact info listed on the escalation path; at the end of the escalation path we also listed someone external to the project (which we were able to do because we had been adopted by the Linux Foundation, and they have someone for that). A possible con of being on this escalation path is having your name and contact info outed to trolls as a supporter of something controversial like a code of conduct. However, I'd argue that the growing list of ACKs on this thread expose us in a similar way. On the other side, the benefit of having a transparent escalation path like this is that you can bypass a problematic individual who may be in a position of power. It also provides an opportunity for increased discretion in delicate situations like the example Peff gave downthread. [snip...] While I'd feel more comfortable with a "menu" of folks I could escalate a concern to in private, I otherwise like this document and agree with sentiment elsewhere in the list that it will not change the way the project behaves now - only write down the current state. ACK from me.
