Re: [win-pv-devel] [Xen-devel] [RFC] Code of Conduct

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/09/2019, 16:49, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Code of Conduct"):
    > 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 like both of these.  I would be happy to adopt either.  I prefer the
    Contributor Covenant based version.
    
    
    I have two comments.  The first is very minor:
    
    The LF Events one has one different section title.  Instead of
            Enforcement
    it has
            What To Do If You Witness Or Are Subject To Unacceptable
            Behavior 
    which is unwieldy but better in other ways - more positive and
    constructive.  I'm not sure if there is a happy middle ground.
    I am happy to adopt either version with either title.  I mention it in
    case anyone has better ideas etc.

I am also altogether happier with the Contributor Covenant, but maybe 
with a few additional changes such as changing some titles and some
of the modifications outlined earlier.
    
    My second comment is more substantial.  It should not be regarded as a
    blocker, but I would like to see it addressed either now or after CoC
    adoption.
    
    The root issue is the difficult one of what to do about possible
    involvement in abuse by members of the conduct@ address.
    
    I would like to see two changes: firstly, we should publish the list
    of people that the conduct alias goes to.  The CoC should contain a
    reference to the place where this can be found.  "The membership of
    the conduct@ alias is publicly documented in [location]".

That is entirely sensible. I think the best place would be to record this
in the document. We should probably start with a shortlist of people 
and include it in the next version and get it all approved in one go
    
    Secondly, we should explicitly provide a route for someone who
    distrusts member(s) of conduct@.  How about:
    
      If you have concerns about any of the members of the conduct@ alias,
      you are welcome to contact precisely the Conduct Team member(s) of
      your choice.

That is entirely fine with me.
    
    The team should be large and diverse enough that this is a practically
    useful recommendation, but it should not be unwieldy.
    
I was thinking of 2-3 maybe 4 people. Can those leadership team members
who are willing to step up reply to me privately or in this thread. I am 
assuming 
that I will be a member of conduct@, but I am also willing to step aside
if it helps.

Regardless of this, I think I have enough to send out a concrete proposal
for further review

Best Regards
Lars


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