Some repilies to all the issues mentioned here: 1. I think we should definitely maintain our own copy. Sorry for it not being a fork, the only non-formatting changes I made are things that referrred to the Django-run events (since we don't run events -- I did replace some of this language with mention of the meetup group). As for CC-BY: I did refer to the Django CoC, I thought CC-BY only refers to the "last point of copying". If it makes sense to add Speak Up! to the mention for license compliance, I'm happy to do that. 2. The Django CoC specifically has a change procedure. I did not copy that part over, since our organization is a lot less formal -- I'm pretty sure it's "if the PLC agrees". 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. 3. I considered briefly the PSF one. I think it is *way* under-specified. I want to have something that's clear. I think Django, specifically, has a pretty good track record of promoting diversity and the PSF has a...worse one. 4. A CoC has several purposes, and "banning people" is actually pretty far down the list. The first reason is that we assume most people are good people, or at least wish to follow the rules, and having clear rules about what's not acceptable will hopefully lead to people voluntarily complying. The second reason is to send out a message to underrepresented groups: "we value you, and will protect your right to be treated with dignity in our community". While this does not solve diversity problems by itself, it is an important step. A distant third, in my opinion, is the banning of people -- not least because this issue has not really come up [some people got banned from IRC, I believe, but usually not for the kind of reasons described in the CoC, and I don't remember people getting banned from Trac or the ML]. I really did mean what I said in my first e-mail: we do try to be an open and inclusive place. We are *already* complying with the CoC. [If you subscribe to a Hyackean view of law and legislation, this is law, not legislation.] 5. Not a reply to an e-mail, but I like to publicly call out Hyneck for actually reading through the CoC, noticing a couple of mistakes and sending me a pull-request. It is much appreciated! Thanks everyone who took the time to read and think about this important issue, Moshe Z. On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:38 AM anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Amber "Hawkie" Brown <hawkowl@atleastfornow.net> wrote:
On 21 Jun 2015, at 19:00, Hynek Schlawack <hs@ox.cx> wrote:
I am sure everyone understands that the Twisted community would love
Thanks for taking this on, Moshe.
+1
My current draft, including instructions on how to build it, is in https://github.com/moshez/twisted-coc . I have intentionally not made the built documents available, in an attempt to avoid someone picking them up before they're approved by us.
Why isn't this repository either (A) just a simple text file saying "we have adopted the Django CoC" or (B) a very small fork of something else? One of the concerns is licensing; if the text comes via Django, Django credits the "Speak Up!" project, which is CC-BY, apparently from
I wonder whether it might make sense to just say we adopt
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ ?
What I would really love is if we could have our own diversity
statement like Django has: https://www.djangoproject.com/diversity/
The Django one is more explicit -- it's rather sad that it needs to be, but it does lay out more directly the unacceptable behaviours.
That being said, it's not an unchangeable document -- if it doesn't suit
more diversity. While it is hard to achieve, it should be easy to remove one of the obvious blockers -- making underrepresented groups feel more welcome. this repository: <https://github.com/jnoller/talk-mentorship>. Another is... is Twisted really distinct enough to need its own CoC? Just s/Django/Twisted might be good enough? (Since this is not a fork, figuring out if anything else has changed is rather tedious, even after having read both ;)). the community's needs, we can modify it to suit.
So that CoCs are just a set of rules to ban users expressed in a vague legal form, so that people can not complain, because they don't understand. Is that right? =)
-- anatoly t.
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python