From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDE81F463 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731388AbfIXUuw (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:50:52 -0400 Received: from mail.maxeymade.com ([108.252.2.93]:59995 "EHLO mail.maxeymade.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731288AbfIXUuv (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:50:51 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2393 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:50:51 EDT Received: from [10.41.86.232] (eric.riw.enoyolf.org [10.41.86.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.maxeymade.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x8OKAjDl017300 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:10:45 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a Code of Conduct document To: Pratyush Yadav , Denton Liu Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, git@sfconservancy.org, Derrick Stolee , Emily Shaffer , Jonathan Nieder , Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , garimasigit@gmail.com References: <20190924064454.GA30419@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190924171214.GA11452@dentonliu-ltm.internal.salesforce.com> <20190924200533.pfi7zjv73zklaahw@yadavpratyush.com> From: Doug Maxey Message-ID: <939c10b4-d018-82cb-395b-e1d85bfa253b@maxeymade.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:10:43 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190924200533.pfi7zjv73zklaahw@yadavpratyush.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 9/24/19 3:05 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > On 24/09/19 10:12AM, Denton Liu wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:44:54AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >>> +## Enforcement >>> + >>> +Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be >>> +reported by contacting the project team at git@sfconservancy.org. 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. I can put it more succinctly: Has anyone ever heard the pebble dropped in this well hit bottom? >> >> 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 agree with this. I would certainly like to know who the people who > will judge these cases are. > > I want to add another question: what will the judgement process be like? > Will it be an open discussion on this list, or will it be decided behind > closed doors by the committee, and we just get to hear the results? > > While there might be no plans regarding this as of now, I'd _really_ > like an open discussion regarding these issues that arise in the future, > rather than it being decided behind closed doors with us regular old > contributors getting no say in it. A closed discussion would be much > more prone to power abuse, if any. > >> 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.