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

Add a Code of Conduct #2289

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Sep 7, 2016
Merged

Add a Code of Conduct #2289

merged 8 commits into from
Sep 7, 2016

Conversation

pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator

@pnorman pnorman commented Aug 18, 2016

This adds a code of conduct, based on the Go code of conduct. The goal of a code of conduct is to make explicit inappropriate behavior and mechanisms for dealing with it.

In selecting the Go code of conduct as a starting point, I looked at about 25 options, looking for those which covered the problems we have had and would work with a small scale project, or could be made to work by eliminating content instead of substantial rewrites.[1]

I was initially expecting to do something based on the Debian code of conduct but I found it less useful than the Values section of the Go document. It is much easier to remove unnecessary sections than expand a document.

Modifications

Most of the modifications are because the Go process does not scale down to small projects. We have four maintainers and one discussion venue - Github. Go has orders of magnitude more people involved and has IRC channels, mailing lists, mutiple GitHub projects, a subreddit, and in-person events.

To Do

  • Add links to the document
  • Link to it from CONTRIBUTING.md

References

Go CoC proposal rationale
Go CoC blog post/talk

[1]: Debian, FreeBSD, Go, Joomla, and Puppet met the initial filtering.

@jojo4u
Copy link

jojo4u commented Aug 19, 2016

I read the text and welcome this addition.

@matthijsmelissen
Copy link
Collaborator

Looks fine to me. I can merge this or wait for the todo-items to be resolved.

@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pnorman commented Aug 22, 2016

I can merge this or wait for the todo-items to be resolved.

I'm okay either way, but because this is a policy matter instead of a normal PR I'd like feedback or a go-ahead from @gravitystorm and @matkoniecz

@gravitystorm
Copy link
Owner

I'm broadly in favour of this. I can see two small things:

  • To be in line with other OpenStreetMap policies, I favour "indefinite" bans rather than "permanent" bans.
  • We will need to publish email addresses for the maintainers

@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pnorman commented Sep 2, 2016

To be in line with other OpenStreetMap policies, I favour "indefinite" bans rather than "permanent" bans.

We changed to permanent in the DWG ban policy.

@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pnorman commented Sep 2, 2016

We will need to publish email addresses for the maintainers

Should we set up an alias? We don't often need to communicate privately, only every other month or so, but it would be nice to just send to one email.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants