[Meta] Add CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[driusan]

This adds a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file with the goal of being as
non-politicized as possible. It defers to MCIN and McGill University
codes and policies with a vague paragraph trying to include external
contributors, who might otherwise think that we don't accept external
contributions.

Testing instructions (if applicable)

1. Hire a lawyer and/or contact your local HR rep to ask if this code implies any legal or ethical issues that we should be aware of.

Resolves #5864

[johnsaigle]

Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the project team at cbrain-support.mni@mcgill.ca.

I liked this line from the CBRAIN repo. It would be nice for contributors to have some communication channel in case of a problem.

[driusan]

The problems I have with that line are:

1. The language is punitive, not positive.
2. If we created an email address it implies that there are some resources monitoring it and taking action with complaints. Having an email address that either goes into the void or without appropriate safeguards about how things sent to it are handled (privacy, legal reporting obligations, etc) is worse than having no address. We do not have any trained mediators to handle conflicts with external collaborators and the McGill or MCIN policies referred to should already have their own enforcement mechanisms with appropriate safeguards and resources in place (or at least I'd hope.)
3. All the communication mediums involving LORIS that I can think of (GitHub, slack, loris-dev) are already fairly well monitored.

[johnsaigle]

Yeah I guess you're right we don't have resources for that sort of thing. We can punt it to the HR department because we have one.

[johnsaigle]

Should we add this to the ReadTheDocs nav bar?

[maltheism]

I like the simplicity of the conduct.

[christinerogers]

@driusan did you base this on any template, in whole or in part?
Asking because this reads not as a code of conduct, rather as a disclaimer/caveat to say participate at your own risk

I can see other tweaks we cold make too so it sounds like we actually welcome contributions instead of just expressing wariness of liability.
e.g. I'd like to see the However, removed, which sets a negative tone for what follows.

I liked this line from the CBRAIN repo. It would be nice for contributors to have some communication channel in case of a problem.
@johnsaigle W do have at least 1-2 well-monitored and private Loris emails that can be used for reporting, I think it would be a gesture of good faith to put such an address/channel here. I understand the points against but again I think it would help a lot with the done of this.

[driusan]

@christinerogers This was explicitly not based on any template because I believe decisions such as "adopt [template] as a code of conduct" should be made at an organizational level, not a repository/team level.

My goal with this document is to explicitly reference the code already exists (follow the organizational code of conduct and any other codes that apply to you) without claiming authority to make decisions about a parallel grievance process.

[PapillonMcGill]

Simple and respectful. I like it.

Creating a complex code of conduct might attract people who want to find cracks in the code of conduct and abuse them.

[christinerogers]

Points above noted and appreciated, @driusan and @PapillonMcGill
I still think that adding the Code of Conduct as CBRAIN has done - https://github.com/aces/cbrain/blob/master/.github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
will provide many more benefits than real liabilities.
We already adhere to its practices and values pretty naturally and collaboratively as a team and community, and I think we would see better results in the bigger external picture in following this standard boilerplate as CBRAIN does since that is already our intentional practice.

[PapillonMcGill]

Yes indeed, the cbrain code of conduct is quite extensive and also in a positive tone (for most of it).
We could include an existing (or new) email address. It would need (IMHO) at least to be viewed by a few persons, not the entire team (privacy).
In the mean time, I am sure that someone wanting to make a complain could find some email address within a few minutes of search.
I think the decision to include or not such an email address should be taken not by one person but the maintainer team (and leadership). This would go in line with Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership. as written on cbrain code of conduct.

[christinerogers]

@PapillonMcGill per my previous comment, there is already an existing email we can use, that's no problem. (I won't publish here though until decided)

[johnsaigle]

Suggested change

	As open source software we encourage contributions from other sources. When interacting
	When interacting

I don't think this part is necessary.

[johnsaigle]

Is it worth having a broad conversation about this in a LORIS meeting?

My preference is something more like what CBRAIN has but as Dave as said, this is more of an organizational decision rather than a coder/repo decision. Maybe this is ultimately in @samirdas's court.

[driusan]

@samirdas sent me some text that he asked to be used for the code of conduct. This needs to be merged to have a stable URL to add to grants, any questions or suggested modifications should go through him rather this PR review.

[christinerogers]

Adding tags so that this is noted in the 23 Release notes / changelog