I'm not picky which CoC we use, but the fact that upstream requires
approval shouldn't disqualify PSF. Part of my argument is that our
contributions benefit a larger community. If PSF needs an enforcement
clause, they might be more than willing to adopt the change -- and a bigger
community would certainly benefit.
The goal should be to participate in and contribute to something broad.
PSF woudl be great. A little Googling identified some other referenced
CoCs (Twitter, Ubuntu, GDC, OSI, Gnome, Mozilla) -- see
https://openhatch.org/wiki/Project_codes_of_conduct for these and more
examples -- as well as the "Contributor Covenant" that claims ~30 projects
as participants and accepts PRs:
http://contributor-covenant.org/
It seems likely that at least one of these options provides both a good
starting point and an acceptable governance policy.
Clayton
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:49 PM, David Reid
While it should not in theory be difficult to update the PSF CoC, in practice I expect it would be quite difficult for the simple reason that:
"This document was approved by the membership of the Python Software Foundation during the vote which concluded on 19 April 2013."
Implying that any updates to the CoC would also need to be approved by a vote of the membership.
So while it'd be nice for the PSF CoC to be updated such that it was enforceable I think that should block adoption of a CoC by the Twisted Project.
I'm a +1 on adopting the Django CoC.
-David
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Jason J. W. Williams < jasonjwwilliams@gmail.com> wrote:
Apologies...editing while on a call.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Steve Waterbury
wrote: On 06/23/2015 03:31 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, David Reid
wrote: I'm going to come out strongly against using the PSF CoC. It is
woefully
inadequate, it includes no mechanisms for reporting, and as any PSF member who has been on certain mailing lists knows it is actually completely unenforceable.
Enforcing CoCs is hard, and to that end I don't think adding a section to the PSF CoC indicating who will act as arbiter for enforcement and what the stages of remediation available to the arbiters are.
With all due respect ;), that is not a well-formed sentence ... this part of it:
"adding a section to the PSF CoC indicating who will act as arbiter for enforcement and what the stages of remediation available to the arbiters are"
is a noun phrase. So you said "I don't think [noun phrase]." I suspect you want to say "I don't think [noun phrase] would be difficult." ... or something like that.
Steve
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python