Power of Consensus for launching v3 Blog#157
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for ethicalsource ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
mmcelaney
changed the title
|
@CoralineAda added the changes to the index as you requested over in #156 |
|
|
||
| Through surveys, conducting interviews, and gathering feedback on shared drafts, the working group engaged with over two dozen open source maintainers, community managers, code of conduct committee members, and other adopters of Contributor Covenant, learning about the challenges of code of conduct enforcement today and where existing tools were falling short—directly from practitioners. Gerardo Lisboa said, “Our goal with version 3 was to have a very consistent voice throughout the document, and we sought to make sure the rules of addressing and repairing harm were scalable and well-balanced." | ||
|
|
||
| The WG persevered through unexpected creative challenges and delays to ensure that everyone in the WG agreed with every word and change in the final draft of version 3. Maryblessing Okolie said, “It took us a year and six months to complete the entire draft while making sure people were available. It took that long because we wanted to make sure that we were incorporating every bit of feedback.” Everything was discussed and weighed against the needs of the whole. The WG utilized google docs for draft version control, instead of GitHub. Rynn Mancuso said, “We do not always do everything in the open on GitHub. One reason is structural - GitHub is not great at document management... Another reason that we did that is... we've received a lot of harassment from groups on the internet that were frankly invested in being able to cause trouble for a lot of people.” We wanted to ensure that contributors to the Contributor Covenant felt safe in providing their feedback in an environment that was protected from bad actors in the public. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need to be specific about our tooling. Instead, let's talk about how our synchronous working sessions went, and how we approached working individually async?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We wanted to mention the use of google docs over working in the open on github to address the need for safety... We felt like it was an important thing to mention, that there is risk involved with this work and that should be taken into account... Maybe it's good feedback for GitHub to consider?
mmcelaney
left a comment
mmcelaney
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok resolved all but one comment. Was there something in particular about the synchronous and asynchronous work that you think we should highlight? @CoralineAda
|
|
||
| > “It took us a year and six months to complete the entire draft while making sure people were available. It took that long because we wanted to make sure that we were incorporating every bit of feedback,” Maryblessing Okolie said. | ||
|
|
||
| The WG persevered through unexpected creative challenges and delays to ensure that everyone in the WG agreed with every word and change in the final draft of version 3. Everything was discussed and weighed against the needs of the whole. The WG utilized google docs for draft version control, instead of GitHub. We wanted to ensure that contributors to the Contributor Covenant felt safe in providing their feedback in an environment that was protected from bad actors in the public. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would suggest something like "The working group decided against using GitHub for version control of the draft, opting to work in a shared document instead. This was to ensure that participants felt safe contributing to the sensitive drafting process in an environment that was kept safe from bad actors."
2 participants
What does this PR accomplish?
Getting there
Interesting bits
Notes for reviewers