Dear Guix maintainers,it is important for the community to see a response by the maintainer collective to this email. It is bad news if the CoC isn't actually enforced. Especially in light of the minimal noncommittal response of the maintainers to the LLM situation this casts a bad light on the project.
-- Ricardo Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
Hello Guix,As you know, Guix has a code of conduct (CoC), the Contributor Covenant,which can be seen in the ‘CODE-OF-CONDUCT’ file.I view it as crucial for several reasons: it ensures our community remains welcoming and pleasant, it sends a message to people from groups that are underrepresented in Guix and in free software that we will make this space non-discriminating and welcoming for them as well, and it provides the basis without which consensus building is impossible.While this has worked well for many years, the CoC was violated several times in the past six months or so, but there is no evidence thatenforcement actions were undertaken. I reported violations to[email protected] at the end of June and a second time beginningof August but did not get any meaningful feedback. I emailed guix-maintainers again this week to share my concerns.I would like us to ensure that routine CoC violations like we’ve seendon’t happen again.To do this, I think we need to address structural problems. The current maintainers have been doing this work for many years: 7 years for Maxim and Tobias, a bit less for Efraim and Mathieu, but Tobias and Mathieu haven’t been active in the project for a couple of years. I am grateful to them because enforcing the CoC is hard work and it has worked well for years. Yet I think we need to acknowledge that rotation would makeit healthier for everyone.My proposal is to set up a moderation team, separate from maintainers, whose sole responsibility would be CoC enforcement and that could beheld accountable. The implications as I see it would be:1. A fixed-term mandate for moderation team members, both to avoidfatigue and to reduce the risk of continued biases. 2. Mandatory transparency reports that the team would sendperiodically to summarize its actions (without giving any detailson the cases themselves).3. Revocable mandate in case its mission is not fulfilled (version 1.4of the Contributor Covenant, which was used before commit4254d74b4ca6d4aa78b7fa055fc9ec72a2e93ad3, included such a clause).It’s perhaps too early to discuss procedural details. However, we need volunteers who’d like to share their moderation experience, to take the lead on this change, and/or to be members of the first moderation team. I expect the current maintainers to join the effort so they can share their experience and help make this happen as quickly as possible.Please make yourself known so we can figure out the way forward! Thanks, Ludo’.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
