Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Code of Conduct improvements #1

Open
aronowski opened this issue Oct 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Code of Conduct improvements #1

aronowski opened this issue Oct 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@aronowski
Copy link
Owner

Improving upstream Code of Conduct with mentions that, among others:

  • people and organizations who come here and file applications for a review may have different backstories, experiences, etc. and not have the knowledge to file a flawless application the first time. It's natural and there's nothing to be ashamed about. We're here to partake in a venue where we all can learn from the public applications in a sorta safe space to make mistakes as I would name it.
  • they may not follow the development of UEFI shim, bootloaders, the Linux kernel, SSL libraries, among others and may not be aware of the venues that take place outside the public Red Hat Bootloader Team's GitHub repositories, as they may just be rebuilding or patching the bootchain components. For instance, they may not know if there already is a solid NX support implementation in the 6.0 kernel family and where to look for clues on this.
  • they may have a high-end technology that clones a repository and performs a build in mere seconds, but this is not always the case. The reviewers may work with a limited (speed or transfer-wise) Internet connection, disk space, processing power, etc. Therefore, I pledge to keep a reasonable repository size, rather than letting a reviewer download hundreds of megabytes

and maybe more examples of positive and unacceptable behavior.

Needs rhboot#349 to be resolved first, before the whole document gets finalized.

@aronowski
Copy link
Owner Author

More mentions about reviewers:

  • some may be able to do this as a full-time job, some do reviews in their free time as volunteers
  • even when it's a full-time job, half of a day may be unavailable due to multiple circumstances and interruptions, like forced interactions with third parties, environmental obstacles like having a construction site on the exact street the review is being worked on, or personal struggles that make focusing on analysis hard (we're humans after all).
  • even when some people have experience in certain environment, they may not have it in a different one. Considering even those scenarios that there are distinct distro families, frameworks, among others.
  • writing a reply is not that easy as it may seem. It's nothing comparable to posting trivial stuff on social media, that can be done anytime, but does require lots of organization and focus.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant