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 <dreid@dreid.org> wrote:
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
<waterbug@pangalactic.us> wrote:
> On 06/23/2015 03:31 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, David Reid <dreid@dreid.org> 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