Regarding long enumerations, I would suggest that the added bullet points are examples of *positive* behavior. There are actually fewer examples of *negative *behavior in 1.4. I think this improves the tone. I prefer the addition of the positive examples in 1.4, the space for contacting the project team, the organization/headings of each section, and the overall wording of 1.4. It seems more comprehensive and professional. On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Chuck. Pauli said on GitHub he preferred something shorter and less flowery as well, so that's two votes for the contributor covenant or something more in that direction.
It looks like the link above goes to the 1.2 version of the Contributor Covenant, while the latest version is 1.4:
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/
The 1.4 version has a little more detail on venues and a slot to put in a contact address.
The extra sections are good but I think the long enumerations dilute the message. All means all is a stronger statement than a list of every conceivable attribute. I think the 1.2 version is better in that regard.
Folks who look like you or me aren't really the intended audience for this – we already know we're included :-). The important thing is how the message comes across to those who might otherwise feel excluded. So I think this is a place where we should defer to the experts.
-n
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Matt Haberland Assistant Adjunct Professor in the Program in Computing Department of Mathematics 7620E Math Sciences Building, UCLA