doc: add initial CoC wording#80
Conversation
Far from complete or baked, but should form the basis to get discussion started.
|
cc @nodejs/moderation |
…ONDUCT_REQUIREMENTS.md Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
|
|
||
| ## Escalation | ||
|
|
||
| It is expected that most reports will be handled successfully by the CPC (in the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be "the project", and not "the CPC". Most reports must b handled by the projects themselves, and escalted to the CPC only in case of non-resolution.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was trying to say that reports to the CPC for foundation spaces would be handled by the CPC and reports to Projects would be handled by the projects. Will try to clarify.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to try to clarify
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
|
Other than some mismatched capitalizations (project(s) is sometimes capitalized and not), I think this is a good starting point for Foundation CoC expectations. Thanks @mhdawson for the effort here. |
|
@nodejs/bootstrap I think I've addressed all questions/comments so far. |
|
Probably should expand acronyms on first use to make docs like this more independent. "CPC" needs expansion I think. |
|
Likely should include a README.md and a link in the main readme. This looks like enough content to land as Stage 1 imho more comments to come inline |
|
|
||
| The foundation has chosen to require a common Code of Conduct to maximize its effectiveness | ||
| at supporting projects, in their efforts to apply the Code of Conduct, as well as | ||
| an effective escalation process. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence seems to stop making sense at the first comma. It seems like one sentence and a second incomplete sentence bolted onto it. Maybe an editing or copy/paste error? Regardless, it is very long and has multiple things packed into it. It should be split into two sentences. I'd offer a suggestion, but I'm having trouble with it myself and my daughter is asking to watch a Strong Bad video RIGHT NOW and is getting very impatient.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Above comment a suggestion, not a blocking comment. Doubly so as this is apparently landing as a draft/proposal that is expected to undergo revisions.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that is a result of other comments, but I'll take another pass to try and make it better.
|
|
||
| The _$FOUNDATION_ has adopted the | ||
| [Contributor Covenant v1.4.1](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.md) | ||
| as its code of conduct and it applies to all activities/spaces at the foundation level. In |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does "at the foundation level" mean here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Again, a question/comment that does not require immediate attention. Feel free to merge without addressing it at this time.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At the foundation level means that repos, meetings etc which are under the Foundation but not in a specific project. A good example are CPC meetings or repos which are in a github organization setup for the Foundation as opposed to a project.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be simpler and clearer to say "it applies to all foundation activities and spaces" rather than "it applies to all activities/spaces at the foundation level"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(^^^^ Legitimately asking. I don't know if that somehow changes the meaning in a subtle way. I would expect that it might make the applicability more expansive, but I would also imagine that would be desirable.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy with your suggested wording, will pull in.
…EQUIREMENTS.md Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
|
@Trott, @MylesBorins I think I've updated to address all comments. |
|
Also should have noted updated to mark as stage 1 and to address @rvagg's comment to expand CPC on first use. |
| implement enforcement of the Code of Conduct using processes appropriate for the size | ||
| and scope of the project including any day-to-day moderation of the project spaces. As part | ||
| of these processes, however, the project must agree to: | ||
| * maintain the confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an indicent |
Co-Authored-By: mhdawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
|
Consensus in meeting to move to stage 1 |
12 participants
Far from complete or baked, but should form the basis
to get discussion started.