From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93B7C433B4 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5258561220 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:42:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5258561220 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:59882 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lWM7I-0005es-1q for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:42:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45794) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lWLqv-0002B3-CG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:25:25 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:25878) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lWLqs-0006rn-CQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:25:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618331120; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=3wjSEo/H/vHeHaqTPCA0WrZKPg1ymei90TtQiwNv+SM=; b=Ft9CtuU6+Hs2p9NqQwvXpirlo7eVQHDKRoSiQS4JCE5wXu3GEPrs81sZtcCe8O7di67BPj BYXVbWDVCuLQ/ZG8LPEVXYV7ILOSNses4kdPaX0P1vUe2dMO/R1dLQtmtIJ7Hyps+G44RM kLbQGRL9UBrqNc66qo71o2LQEANdrFk= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-23-DAECD4SGMnGvTsig7X0Ncg-1; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:25:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: DAECD4SGMnGvTsig7X0Ncg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743B010053ED; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-114-58.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.58]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5FE14106; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:25:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:25:00 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy document Message-ID: References: <20210331150527.14857-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210331150527.14857-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.5 (2021-01-21) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=berrange@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@csgraf.de, stefanha@redhat.com, alex.bennee@linaro.org, afaerber@suse.de Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > In an ideal world, we would all get along together very well, always be > polite and never end up in huge conflicts. And even if there are conflicts, > we would always handle each other fair and respectfully. Unfortunately, > this is not an ideal world and sometimes people forget how to interact with > each other in a professional and respectful way. Fortunately, this seldom > happens in the QEMU community, but for such rare cases it is preferrable > to have a basic code of conduct document available to show to people > who are misbehaving. In case that does not help yet, we should also have > a conflict resolution policy ready that can be applied in the worst case. > > The Code of Conduct document tries to be short and to the point while > trying to remain friendly and welcoming; it is based on the Fedora Code > of Conduct[1] with extra detail added based on the Contributor Covenant > 1.3.0[2]. Other proposals included the Contributor Covenant 1.3.0 itself > or the Django Code of Conduct[3] (which is also a derivative of Fedora's) > but, in any case, there was agreement on keeping the conflict resolution > policy separate from the CoC itself. > > An important point is whether to apply the code of conduct to violations > that occur outside public spaces. The text herein restricts that to > individuals acting as a representative or a member of the project or > its community. This is intermediate between the Contributor Covenant > (which only mentions representatives of the community, for example using > an official project e-mail address or posting via an official social media > account), and the Django Code of Conduct, which says that violations of > this code outside these spaces "may" be considered but does not limit > this further. Since this was derived from the Fedora CoC, you might be interested to know that Fedora is currently revisiting its CoC: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/policy-proposal-new-code-of-conduct/ The first comment on that post from mattdm gives clarity as to why they feel the need to revisit it Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|