Re: [PATCH] CoC: update to 2.0

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Dec 28 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> At 5cdf2301 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24) we adopted
> a Code of Conduct from www.contributor-covenant.org; back then the
> version adopted, 1.4, was the latest one.
>
> Version 2.0 tightens language in examples of unacceptable behaviour,
> generalizes the audience from "contributors and maintainers" to
> "community", and enhances the enforcement section.
>
> The preamble we added to the beginning of the document has been
> kept, but the rest of the test has been replaced in full from the
> "upstream" and then the same customization for our community
> (i.e. the way to contact community leadership teams) has been
> applied.

I think the update to 2.0 makes sense. But would in general prefer less
divergence with upstream for code or documents we copy/paste.

So I submitted a v2 in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201228171734.30038-1-avarab@gmail.com/
whose diff to upstream is half the size of yours. Perhaps you like it
better, or not.

In any case: Acked-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>

The thing I'm most on the fence about in 2.0 is the addition of very
specific enforcement guidelines.

They're still guidelines, so they're not a promise that we'll do things
exactly like that. I still think the sentence from Jeff's addition of
1.4 makes more sense for us as a project:

    It probably make sense _not_ to get too specific at this point, and
    deal with specifics as they come up.

E.g. the phrasing in the new "Temporary Ban" which seems to suggest that
if we were to take action based on the CoC that it's up to us to police
interaction between the parties involved on third-party social media
platforms.

I don't think it's going to be much of a practical concern. It just
seems to me the upstream 2.0 CoC makes a lot of assumptions about
projects being run in a way where they manage most of their
communications infrastructure directly in a silo'd manner.

We don't even manage the Git ML directly, and surely the main point the
CoC is to communicate to existing and new project participants what's
expected of them when it comes to interacting with the community.

If the enforcment guidelines promise something that's unlikely to be
practical in our case perhaps we'd be better off by leaving that entire
section out of the CoC update.