Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy document

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	"Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Alexander Graf" <agraf@csgraf.de>,
	"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
	"Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy document
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:07:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c9ae35d4-65c3-980a-aaf3-e4be58b68d24@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGMhUTUXJBM3BcW5@redhat.com>

On 30/03/21 15:02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Consider someone is kicked out from another project for violation
> of that project's CoC, that would also be considered a violation
> under QEMU's CoC. This qualifier is explicitly stating that the CoC
> violation in the other project has no bearing on whether that
> person can now start participating in QEMU. I think that's a bad
> mixed message we're sending there. It is especially poor if the
> victim from the other project is also a QEMU contributor.

My wording is actually already broader than what is in the contributor 
covenant:

   This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces, and it also
   applies when an individual is representing the project or its
   community in public spaces. Examples of representing a project or
   community include using an official project e-mail address, posting
   via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
   representative at an online or offline event.

That is, the Code of Conduct would not apply to someone saying "the QEMU 
SCSI maintainer rejected my patches, he is an idiot" on Twitter.  My 
proposal sought to find a middle ground, where that person could be 
reasonably considered to be "acting as a member of the project or its 
community".

> The wording Thomas' draft has
>
>   In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may
>   affect a person's ability to participate within them.
> 
> doesn't require QEMU to take action. It just set a statement
> of intent that gives QEMU the freedom to evaluate whether it is
> reasonable to take action to protect its contributors, should a
> contributor wish to raise an issue that occurred outside QEMU.

There have been in the past cases of external people asking projects to 
ban contributors because of views they held on social media.  The 
Contributor Covenant initially included no limit to the application of 
the CoC and only added a limitation after the author herself was 
involved in such an episode[1][2].

I would prefer to avoid putting QEMU in that situation, and limit the 
applicability code of conduct as much as possible to conflicts within 
the community.

The Mozilla participation guidelines (2165 words :)) acknowledge that 
"it is possible for actions taken outside of Mozilla's online or in 
person spaces to have a deep impact on community health" but also admit 
that "this is an active topic in the diversity and inclusion realm"[3].

The Django code of conduct seems to be in the minority in having such a 
broad applicability, while the wording in the Contributor Covenant seems 
to be more informed by actual experience.

Paolo

[1] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 (June 18, 2015)
[2] 
https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/commit/c400f17438 
(June 19, 2015)
[3] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/