[Twisted-Python] Proposal -- Code of Conduct

[Clayton Daley]

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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Apologies...editing while on a call.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Steve Waterbury
>> <waterbug at 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 at 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 at twistedmatrix.com
>> > http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Twisted-Python mailing list
>> Twisted-Python at twistedmatrix.com
>> http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Twisted-Python mailing list
> Twisted-Python at twistedmatrix.com
> http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/twisted-python/attachments/20150623/1531e910/attachment-0002.html>