Add DataTogether Code of Conduct

[patcon]

In the updated slack invite app (edgi-govdata-archiving/overview#167), there's an environment variable to link the CoC in the signup form. I'm seeing this link in Archivers repo, but does DataTogether have one?
https://github.com/archivers-space/docs#archiversspace-docs

1. Do we want a CoC?
2. If we do, does one already exist? (If so, please pointy-pointy me in the right direction.)
3. If we don't have one, can we port EDGI's over, or do we want to use a different one?

Thanks!

cc: @dcwalk

To Do

• If desired, add CoC
• Add CoC to Archivers invite app

[b5]

I'm all about that CoC, probably important to establish this while you're working on #13, I don't think we have one at the moment, and would nominate porting EDGI's CoC over, but I'd want to make sure that's ok with the protocol labs team first. Maybe we bring EDGI's over tentatively & then flag it for review at the next meeting?

[b5]

lol sorry, I gotta stop editing comments :/

[patcon]

Assuming @ipfs and @protocol are essentially in agreement, found this in their community repo:
https://github.com/ipfs/community/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md

[b5]

perfect. then I vote we do that. Others feel free to chime in, but I'd support just moving forward with getting a CoC in place. If you could also link an md file that we can update repos with as we go, that'd be stellar.

[mhucka]

That IPFS CoC looks pretty good and comprehensive. I guess my only question would be if it can be used wholesale, since some things are specific to IPFS (e.g., the abuse reporting address). But if that's not an issue, +1 from me.

[dcwalk]

A couple thoughts:

• the IPFS CoC really seems like it covers a lot of the eventual areas a DT CoC would need to cover, but much of it is a little bigger than where DT is at (especially the content, how online spaces are defined, the abuse reporting and grievance system
• the IPFS CoC doesn't address some of the areas covered by the EDGI CoC (https://github.com/edgi-govdata-archiving/overview/blob/master/CONDUCT.md) Don't know how to link to a line, but I'm really focusing in on this block:
  EDGI

harrassment-free environment for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion or technical skill level. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.
Harassment includes verbal comments that reinforce social structures of domination related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

IPFS

We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, age, physical appearance, body size, race, or similar personal characteristics.
Harassment includes, but is not limited to: harmful or prejudicial verbal or written comments related to gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, age, physical appearance, body size, race, or similar personal characteristics; inappropriate use of nudity, sexual images, and/or sexually explicit language in public spaces; threats of physical or non- physical harm; deliberate intimidation, stalking or following; harassing photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks or other events; inappropriate physical contact; and unwelcome sexual attention.

• I actually think this is something that should get input before adding in quickly
• Really think the approach of adopting a temporary one with a plan to revisit is good, especially as if we went with something similar to EDGIs it wouldn't cover the breadth that the IPFS one approaches

(sorry I'm not sure if I saw a pre-edited comment from @b5...?)

[This is @patcon: made an edit to bold differences]

[dcwalk]

Also also -- I would stress that setting up a reporting channel is great, but also something to be approached with a bit of care/attention

[mhucka]

@dcwalk you have a keen eye. +100.

[patcon]

All great thoughts :)

My own:

1. I agree that @dcwalk pulled out an important bit. This is the part we read aloud at CivicTechTO events, and strikes me as a crux of sorts :)
2. archivers-space has apparently been without a CoC, i.e. dead link in docs. But perhaps we were de facto using EDGI's.
3. I do like the idea of converging on one with IPFS if they're interested to engage. If so, perhaps we can "upstream" some of the EDGI language that we're partial to.
4. We could submit some PRs to IPFS CoC, to simply disentangle IPFS-specific bits and language and provide better formatting for "quarantining" IPFS-specific parts, and the sections are identified. Then we could have a CONDUCT.md that refers to theirs, but add something like "but Section 2.2 Reporting."
5. I would be in favour of adapting/adopting IPFS's CoC for now (in the interest of alignment), provided we work to get some of EDGI's important bits in. And if there's not interest in that among IPFS folks, I feel we should stay open to going "back" to using EDGI's

The above talk of "upstreaming" would mean that we would have a responsibility to work with IPFS when they modify their CoC. This is a bit of burden, but honestly seems kinda healthy -- more convo in tech about the intentional communities we want to cultivate and share between one another :)

[dcwalk]

@patcon -- Archivers-space did have a CoC, I think adopted from Ruby? It wasn't EDGI's and I think I had flagged in an issue somewhere that there was a bit of difference.
It might have deadlinked with all the work that @b5 did in the org migration.

[b5]

a lot of the individual repos have code_of_conduct.md, which @ebarry helped select as a placeholder: https://github.com/datatogether/patchbay/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md

apologies for the dead links, indeed I think it was lost in the org migration. It had been flagged as an issue to reconcile the two... somewhere.

[dcwalk]

RE: individual vs. org-wide .md -- I'd favour a tiny template in each repo pointing to the org CONDUCT.md whenever one goes live! (Less updating :)))

[mhucka]

What about having a template repository, not just a template for CoC? I'm thinking we could create a repo with a clever name like "repo-boilerplate" or "github-template", containing the files that one would normally want to put in each repo: conduct, contributions guidelines, readme, license, maybe some others. When creating a new repo, clone the template rather than creating a blank repo.

[patcon]

Maybe we bring EDGI's over tentatively

To unstick this, would the most agreeable step forward be copying EDGI's Code of Conduct over for now? Would that be acceptable movement forward?

[dcwalk]

I think that would be great @patcon -- this is my impression of our CoC recipe for sprint:

1. Have main CONDUCT.md in datatogether, borrowed from EDGI CoC for now (launch issue for discussion of changes to CoC)
2. Have template CoCs (maybe just in CONTRIBUTING.md for each repo
3. Set up issues in each repo to add correct CoC (refactor existing files)
4. label with doc-sprint (see Set up sprint labels #32)

[dcwalk]

Addressed 1) -- datatogether/datatogether#29

[dcwalk]

This happened :), post-sprint we should pick up code of conduct conversations in #54 , which traces its lineage to this convo.