Hi everyone,

I'm sorry I haven't responded to the e-mails -- I have had a busy weekend, and my stack was a bit deep for personal projects. I will try to get caught up and see what the right next step is on Monday.

Thanks for your understanding,
Moshe Z.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:27 PM Kevin Turner <keturn@keturn.net> wrote:
I'm generally +1 on the idea of having a CoC.
I'm content to delegate the details to subcommittee, so maybe I should leave it at that, but I find there's one point I want to reinforce here:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015, at 08:46 AM, Moshe Zadka wrote:
4. A CoC has several purposes, and "banning people" is actually pretty far down the list. […]
Agreed. Clayton said "They rarely get read until there's a problem," but I think prevention and expectation-setting are things to aim for here. If people only find out about what's acceptable conduct *after* there's a problem, that's too late.
and as an aside,
I think it's a problem that we don't have the names of the people on the PLC on our wiki, but this is a separate issue. [It should be rectified, as well as clarifying the rules for how the PLC acquires/retires members.
Agreed. (I am one of the current PLC members.)
Twisted-Python mailing list