On 09/24, Jeff King wrote: > We've never had a formally written Code of Conduct document. Though it > has been discussed off and on over the years, for the most part the > behavior on the mailing list has been good enough that nobody felt the > need to push one forward. > > However, even if there aren't specific problems now, it's a good idea to > have a document: > > - it puts everybody on the same page with respect to expectations. > This might avoid poor behavior, but also makes it easier to handle > it if it does happen. > > - it publicly advertises that good conduct is important to us and will > be enforced, which may make some people more comfortable with > joining our community > > - it may be a good time to cement our expectations when things are > quiet, since it gives everybody some distance rather than focusing > on a current contentious issue > > This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed > to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted > language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations > and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document > used by the Git for Windows project. > > The text is taken mostly verbatim from: > > https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html > > I also stole a very nice introductory paragraph from the Git for Windows > version of the file. > > There are a few subtle points, though: > > - the document refers to "the project maintainers". For the code, we > generally only consider there to be one maintainer: Junio C Hamano. > But for dealing with community issues, it makes sense to involve > more people to spread the responsibility. I've listed the project > committee address of g...@sfconservancy.org as the contact point. > > - the document mentions banning from the community, both in the intro > paragraph and in "Our Responsibilities". The exact mechanism here is > left vague. I can imagine it might start with social enforcement > (not accepting patches, ignoring emails) and could escalate to > technical measures if necessary (asking vger admins to block an > address). It probably make sense _not_ to get too specific at this > point, and deal with specifics as they come up. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <p...@peff.net>
I don't have much to add to this, the commit message spells out all the reasons why we should have this nicely and I wholeheartedly agree with introducing it, and choosing the Contributor Covenant as our template. So I'm adding my ACK to the others that have been coming in already. Thanks for submitting this!
