Community Code of Conduct

[Emily Shaffer]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 2:26 PM Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

FWIW, I just surprised a contributor to a different LF project when I told
him we were under the LF CoC already - he didn't know his project had
inherited a CoC either. Sounds like this is an issue that might be a little
widespread.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20181011/f84c7107/attachment.html>