Community Code of Conduct

[Patrick Venture]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 2:21 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 7:52 PM Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:58 AM krtaylor <kurt.r.taylor at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 10/9/18 1:53 PM, Emily Shaffer wrote:
>> > > Reading through this, I've got a couple concerns:
>> > >
>> > > - There's a clause for enforcement. How do we want to assign ownership
>> > > when enforcement is needed? We probably want to lay it out, I'm not sure
>> > > that it should come through the TSC. Maybe Kurt would be a good start as
>> > > the community manager? No offense to Kurt but I'd also like an
>> > > escalation path or alternative path - with these kinds of things it's
>> > > important to be able to bypass an individual if necessary.
>> >
>> > Re: Community Manager, I am already partially doing that in an
>> > unofficial sense, but for an escalation path, I would highly recommend
>> > first reaching out to the TSC. Any inappropriate activity or harassment
>> > must be taken care of immediately and the community leadership would be
>> > tasked to take care of that.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > - The clause on scope seems to me like it may leave a gap surrounding
>> > > harassment of community members outside of the official OpenBMC setting
>> > > - ie, Foo posts to their Twitter account, "I'm having a lot of trouble
>> > > with Bar's code reviews. What an idiot! Tell them so - their email is
>> > > bar at baz.org <mailto:bar at baz.org>!" I'm not sure I'm seeing how the
>> > > contributor covenant protects against this kind of behavior. Maybe I'm
>> > > just misreading and this counts as "prviate communication"?
>> >
>> > This would absolutely require that the person be put on notice. Maybe it
>> > will help, but I have also never seen this behavior work for anyone
>> > trying to harass anyone. It has always backfired on the person doing the
>> > harassing in every case I can think of (I have been involved in a couple).
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:31 AM Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro.net at gmail.com
>> > > <mailto:jefro.net at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >     Hi folks
>> > >
>> > >     We strongly recommend the contributor covenant coc. Being adopted by
>> > >     many projects.
>> > >
>> > >     https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct
>> > >
>> > >     Glad to discuss more
>> >
>> > As I said in my previous email, we already have a CoC under the LF
>> > policies, but I am not opposed to adopting a new one. That said, do we
>> > need to improve the existing one? Is there something missing? Has anyone
>> > compared the two? Did I just sign up to do that?  :)
>> >
>> > Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)
>>
>> I just read over the LF CoC and I think it's pretty solid.
>
>
> I'd say my only serious concern about the LF one is that it directs concerns to someone outside of the project, first. It seems like we can expedite responses if we encourage folks to report via the TSC or community manager first, and escalate to the LF community manager if necessary.

True, but one would typically see this be a level thing -- if
something isn't severe, keep it in house, otherwise escalate. But who
defines when to escalate or what's severe or,... yeah, it is nice to
keep some aspect in the project so that minor things might be worked
out more quickly.. but I don't know.

>
> As a side point, we should make it more clear that we adhere to the LF CoC. I would be comfortable mentioning it explicitly in some doc in docs/ or the openbmc/openbmc readme, or something. Looking for LF membership and then from there to the CoC isn't very clear to me.

We should definitely point to something somewhere.