Re: [MirageOS-devel] [Xen-devel] [RFC] Code of Conduct

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Lars Kurth wrote:
> On 27/08/2019, 10:33, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>     Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Code of Conduct"):
>     > I did raise the issue of a cross-project support network, which has not 
> yet been on the agenda. I will be hooked into this process.
>     > My gut feeling is that we are looking at 6-9 months before all of this 
> is resolved. Maybe longer.
>     
>     I think this is too long.  We are overdue with this.
>     
>     > Ultimately, we have 3 options:
>     > 
>     >   1.  We wait for the LF and revisit then
>     >   2.  We go our own way re customization
>     >   3.  We draft our own customizations and bring it up in one of the LF 
> meetings discussing this
>     > 
>     > My gut feeling is to go for c) and I am willing to have a try at 
> customizing the Contributor Covenant along the lines of the previous exercise
>     
>     I am happy with 2 or 3, but we shouldn't block on LF approval.  Having
>     input is good.  If later we want to join some cross-community network
>     and want to update it for that, we can do that.  Updating a document
>     for something like that is quite easy.  IMO we need to get on with the
>     really hard work which is adopting a document at all.
> 
> That is also my personal preference.
>     
>     I look forward to your Contributor Covenant based draft.
>     
> I attached a redline version of both the original (based on the LF events 
> CoC) and a redline version based on the covenant given the constraints we 
> agreed. Aka
> [1] Xen CoC Contributor Covenant baseline (redline).pdf 
> [2] Xen CoC LF events baseline (redline).pdf
> 
> I minimized changes to [2]. 
> 
> I would be good to get a sense of whether anyone prefers one over the other 
> or whether additional changes should made to [2], but also [1]. In the thread 
> there had already been concrete suggestions to remove sections such as 
> comments along the lines of compliance with local laws.
> 
> I will disclose my personal opinion a little later. 

Honestly they look both very reasonable and I would be happy with either
of them. I agree with you and Ian that it would be best not to wait for
months, but to try to get it adopted soon.

It is surprising how few changes you had to make to the Contributor
Covenant baseline. Also both end results look so similar that I can
hardly distinguish them in terms of content.

A couple of comments on the Contributor Covenant based one:
- not sure if we still need the examples of positive behavior under "Our
  Standards" by they don't hurt
- Under "Our Responsibilites" the text keeps repeating "Project
  maintainers" while actually we probably want to mention the CoC team
  also (for instance "and are expected, together with the CoC team, to
  take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to").

At this point I might be tempted to suggest to use the one based on the
Contributor Covenant just because the changes are fewer, but I am happy
to leave the decision to you and what you think is best.

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel