Community Code of Conduct

Community Code of Conduct

[Emily Shaffer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --]

Hi all,

As I briefly mentioned at the end of Brad's presentation today, I'd like to
propose adding and enforcing a code of conduct for us to follow.

For now, I am planning to grab a copy of the Linux CoC and put it up for
review in /docs. If anybody has a different CoC source to suggest, I'd be
happy to discuss.

Brad asked me whether I had seen an issue so far and I had not, so please
don't take this email as some kind of retaliation - it's not. I think we've
got a great, positive community and as we grow I'd like to preserve that
culture, and the code of conduct is a great way to do so.

- Emily

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 753 bytes --]

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Jeff Osier-Mixon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

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

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 11:28 AM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I briefly mentioned at the end of Brad's presentation today, I'd like
> to propose adding and enforcing a code of conduct for us to follow.
>
> For now, I am planning to grab a copy of the Linux CoC and put it up for
> review in /docs. If anybody has a different CoC source to suggest, I'd be
> happy to discuss.
>
> Brad asked me whether I had seen an issue so far and I had not, so please
> don't take this email as some kind of retaliation - it's not. I think we've
> got a great, positive community and as we grow I'd like to preserve that
> culture, and the code of conduct is a great way to do so.
>
> - Emily
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1617 bytes --]

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Emily Shaffer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1934 bytes --]

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.

- 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@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"?

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:31 AM Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro.net@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
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 11:28 AM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As I briefly mentioned at the end of Brad's presentation today, I'd like
>> to propose adding and enforcing a code of conduct for us to follow.
>>
>> For now, I am planning to grab a copy of the Linux CoC and put it up for
>> review in /docs. If anybody has a different CoC source to suggest, I'd be
>> happy to discuss.
>>
>> Brad asked me whether I had seen an issue so far and I had not, so please
>> don't take this email as some kind of retaliation - it's not. I think we've
>> got a great, positive community and as we grow I'd like to preserve that
>> culture, and the code of conduct is a great way to do so.
>>
>> - Emily
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3033 bytes --]

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Stewart Smith]

Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> As I briefly mentioned at the end of Brad's presentation today, I'd like to
> propose adding and enforcing a code of conduct for us to follow.
>
> For now, I am planning to grab a copy of the Linux CoC and put it up for
> review in /docs. If anybody has a different CoC source to suggest, I'd be
> happy to discuss.
>
> Brad asked me whether I had seen an issue so far and I had not, so please
> don't take this email as some kind of retaliation - it's not. I think we've
> got a great, positive community and as we grow I'd like to preserve that
> culture, and the code of conduct is a great way to do so.

Now's the time to do it. Taking an existing one is likely a really good
idea as no doubt corporations are about to start looking at these along
with contributor agreements and licensing before engaging in a project.

-- 
Stewart Smith
OPAL Architect, IBM.

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Jeff Osier-Mixon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3739 bytes --]

You are absolutely right to ask these questions, and I'm sure each
community will want to fine-tune it, although as a community manager I
actually prefer some of the vagueness in it. It is normal to add to a CoC
to try to cover all the bases, but people will always think up ways to
violate the spirit of the rule while staying within the letter. For a
positive community (like openbmc) the CoC is a guideline for new users,
rather than legislation for behavior, as it should be.

The best offense is a good community manager who can set the tone, with an
escalation path to a TSC or governing board, whichever is appropriate for a
given community. Ideally it would never be used - it never has been needed
in almost 8 yrs of the Yocto Project, as the leaders simply set a tone of
respect.

That's a really good question of harassment outside. Technically it is
private conversation, or outside the project's boundaries. If I were
community mgr in that case, I would have a frank conversation with the
harasser and let them know that simply isn't the way escalation is done in
this project, then provide the proper way and make sure their concern is
answered while respecting both sides. That being said, being hands-on
doesn't scale up to thousands of participants.

One more tidbit - this is the same CoC adopted by the kernel community and
several other high profile communities, so there is precedent within the
wider open source community for it. One thing I like quite a lot about it
is that it is itself open source - if I find a bug with it, I can submit a
pull request to the CoC itself.

I hope this is helpful to the process and not disruptive  :)

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:53 AM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
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.
>
> - 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@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"?
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:31 AM Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro.net@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
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 11:28 AM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As I briefly mentioned at the end of Brad's presentation today, I'd like
>>> to propose adding and enforcing a code of conduct for us to follow.
>>>
>>> For now, I am planning to grab a copy of the Linux CoC and put it up for
>>> review in /docs. If anybody has a different CoC source to suggest, I'd be
>>> happy to discuss.
>>>
>>> Brad asked me whether I had seen an issue so far and I had not, so
>>> please don't take this email as some kind of retaliation - it's not. I
>>> think we've got a great, positive community and as we grow I'd like to
>>> preserve that culture, and the code of conduct is a great way to do so.
>>>
>>> - Emily
>>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5173 bytes --]

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Emily Shaffer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2532 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:53 PM Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You are absolutely right to ask these questions, and I'm sure each
> community will want to fine-tune it, although as a community manager I
> actually prefer some of the vagueness in it. It is normal to add to a CoC
> to try to cover all the bases, but people will always think up ways to
> violate the spirit of the rule while staying within the letter. For a
> positive community (like openbmc) the CoC is a guideline for new users,
> rather than legislation for behavior, as it should be.
>

As long as we're aware that there's a line to tread with the vagueness, I
don't mind. IMO one of the points is to highlight to community members what
is and isn't abusive language, so having a code that's too vague opens the
door for a victim to be gaslit out of realizing there is a problem going
on.  I don't feel that's an issue with this Contributor Covenant.


>
> The best offense is a good community manager who can set the tone, with an
> escalation path to a TSC or governing board, whichever is appropriate for a
> given community. Ideally it would never be used - it never has been needed
> in almost 8 yrs of the Yocto Project, as the leaders simply set a tone of
> respect.
>

+1000. Like I said at the outset, I don't think this is to address a
problem happening now, so much as it is to codify our current positive
culture and cover ourselves for later.


>
> That's a really good question of harassment outside. Technically it is
> private conversation, or outside the project's boundaries. If I were
> community mgr in that case, I would have a frank conversation with the
> harasser and let them know that simply isn't the way escalation is done in
> this project, then provide the proper way and make sure their concern is
> answered while respecting both sides. That being said, being hands-on
> doesn't scale up to thousands of participants.
>
> One more tidbit - this is the same CoC adopted by the kernel community and
> several other high profile communities, so there is precedent within the
> wider open source community for it. One thing I like quite a lot about it
> is that it is itself open source - if I find a bug with it, I can submit a
> pull request to the CoC itself.
>
> I hope this is helpful to the process and not disruptive  :)
>
>
I've got a copy of the Contributor Covenant up for review in docs/ now:

https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/#/c/openbmc/docs/+/13920/

Happy to continue discussion in both places.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3945 bytes --]

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[krtaylor]

On 10/9/18 1:27 PM, Emily Shaffer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As I briefly mentioned at the end of Brad's presentation today, I'd like 
> to propose adding and enforcing a code of conduct for us to follow.
> 
> For now, I am planning to grab a copy of the Linux CoC and put it up for 
> review in /docs. If anybody has a different CoC source to suggest, I'd 
> be happy to discuss.

We have a CoC covered in the OpenBMC Charter under the LF policies. We 
can, of course over-ride that one and propose our own.

See: 
https://www.openbmc.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/62/2018/03/charter_openbmc_02142018.pdf 
(4.b. "Compliance with Policies")

It points to the one here:
https://lfprojects.org/policies/code-of-conduct/

> Brad asked me whether I had seen an issue so far and I had not, so 
> please don't take this email as some kind of retaliation - it's not. I 
> think we've got a great, positive community and as we grow I'd like to 
> preserve that culture, and the code of conduct is a great way to do so.

I couldn't agree more!

Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[krtaylor]

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@baz.org <mailto:bar@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@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jefro.net@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)

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Patrick Venture]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:58 AM krtaylor <kurt.r.taylor@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@baz.org <mailto:bar@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@gmail.com
> > <mailto:jefro.net@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.

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Emily Shaffer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3212 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 7:52 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:58 AM krtaylor <kurt.r.taylor@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@baz.org <mailto:bar@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@gmail.com
> > > <mailto:jefro.net@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.

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.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4509 bytes --]

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Patrick Venture]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 2:21 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 7:52 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:58 AM krtaylor <kurt.r.taylor@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@baz.org <mailto:bar@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@gmail.com
>> > > <mailto:jefro.net@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.

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Emily Shaffer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4218 bytes --]

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

> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 2:21 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 7:52 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:58 AM krtaylor <kurt.r.taylor@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@baz.org <mailto:bar@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@gmail.com
> >> > > <mailto:jefro.net@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.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6006 bytes --]

Re: Community Code of Conduct

[Emily Shaffer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2340 bytes --]

Hi all,

I wanted to send a quick summary of the discussion ongoing in the review
for the Contributor Covenant in Gerrit.

It looks like we're down to two options: a slightly-modified LF Code of
Conduct, or a slightly-modified Contributor Covenant.

**Linux Foundation Code of Conduct**
+ Concise and vague language leaves room for us to address new problems we
aren't anticipating today.
+ We're already using it, so there's very little change to the community as
stands.
- As written today, it points to a community representative in the LF
organization as the first and only point of contact for escalations.
- The vague language may leave question of what constitutes abuse, leaving
room for gaslighting or otherwise leaving a victim unsure of whether they
can seek recourse.
- It's currently very unclear that the project is expected to adhere to
this CoC.

**Contributor Covenant**
+ Explicit language makes expectations clear and mitigates possibility of
bad actors on the escalation path
+ It's the CoC in use by many high-profile projects, including the Linux
kernel (github.com/torvalds/linux)
+ There is room for us to establish a line of escalation
- Explicit language may leave gaps for poor behavior we haven't anticipated

Please go ahead and reply with your +/- on the two documents if I've missed
something important to you.

Regardless, we have some additional actions to pursue:
* Indicate in documentation clearly that we have a Code of Conduct and how
to find it. (Mostly, if we keep the LF CoC.)
* Determine the escalation path. I see the following needs (please reply
with more or arguments):
** Reporters should have an expectation of confidentiality
** Reporters should be able to circumvent an individual on the path if
necessary for their safety (i.e. if someone on the escalation path is a bad
actor)
** Individuals on the escalation path should not be made to feel unsafe by
their participation. To elaborate, this is a hot topic in the FLOSS
community right now, and I'm worried about the possibility of trolls
harassing our escalation path members. (Maybe it's unreasonable?)
** Individuals on the escalation path should know and consent to being on
the escalation path. (I'm working on drafting a mail to the TSC to ask for
their support now, but that might not be the right way to move forward.)

-Emily

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3060 bytes --]