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

[Lars Kurth]

On 02/09/2019, 16:49, "Ian Jackson"  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


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Ian Jackson]

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.


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]".

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.

The team should be large and diverse enough that this is a practically
useful recommendation, but it should not be unwieldy.


Thanks for driving this.

Regards,
Ian.

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Lars Kurth]

On 27/08/2019, 17:54, "Stefano Stabellini"  wrote:

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Lars Kurth wrote:
> On 27/08/2019, 10:33, "Ian Jackson"  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").

Thanks for pointing that out

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.

It does look very similar. I intentionally made very few changes to the CC as 
the volume of change was a criticism of the earlier attempt. Generally, I feel 
the text of the covenant is not as clear as the other version. But that is 
merely a style issue in that reading through it doesn't flow as well as is in 
the other version. But that is clearly not as important as staying close to the 
original.

We could also made further changes and for example say under enforcement: 
"Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be 
reported by contacting the Xen Project’s CoC team at cond...@xenproject.org 
*which is made up of project leadership team members*" or something like it. 
This would clarify that we are not introducing a new election process.

Also, the examples of positive behaviour under "Our Standards" don't gel very 
well with the section inserted afterwards. This could be addressed by canning 
the positive example section and replacing it with what I inserted underneath. 

What I forgot to mention was that we will try and build on 
https://www.slideshare.net/xen_com_mgr/xpdds19-keynote-patch-review-for-nonmaintainers-george-dunlap-citrix-systems-uk-ltd
 for the separate document to encourage positive behaviour (when I started the 
thread the slides had not been published). 

Also, a number of very good suggestion was made in the discussion we had at 
Secur

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

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Lars Kurth wrote:
> On 27/08/2019, 10:33, "Ian Jackson"  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.___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Ian Jackson]

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.

I look forward to your Contributor Covenant based draft.

Thanks,
Ian.

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Lars Kurth]

From: Rich Persaud 
Date: Friday, 16 August 2019 at 16:49
To: George Dunlap 
Cc: Lars Kurth , xen-devel 
, "minios-de...@lists.xenproject.org" 
, "mirageos-de...@lists.xenproject.org" 
, "win-pv-de...@lists.xenproject.org" 
, "committ...@xenproject.org" 

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

Snip

Hi George,

Thanks for the detailed response.  Lars noted that the proposed Xen CoC is 
nearly identical to Contributor Covenant, which has been adopted by many 
organizations, including teams at Intel and Google.  My comment, from 
https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/561686#561686

Without getting into the merits of Contributor Covenant, there is value in 
reusing an "upstream CoC" that has been vetted by many organizations and is 
being continually tested in the real world.



Similar to the "macro supply chain" topic:  if Xen Project must make changes to 
the upstream CoC, these can be done as a logical patch (rather than an orphaned 
fork) so we can incorporate upstream improvements.  The rationale for each diff 
against the upstream CoC can be in a revision-controlled doc, so that future 
CoC maintainers understand the reasoning behind each diff, as communities and 
contributors evolve.

Your discussion above clearly covers differences between Contributor Covenant 
and Xen's CoC, and could be translated to text suitable for commit messages, 
with one commit per diff from an upstream CoC.

Rich

This is not really productive. I was looking for concrete feedback, but we 
ended up with a long discussion with no actionable items that can help resolve 
the discussion.

How about the following:

· Make a proposal based on the Contributor Covenant

· Try and address some of the key customizations which I have been 
trying to make (which George outlined nicely)

This shouldn’t take much longer than the time you, George and I spent on this 
email thread already. You can follow the methodology you propose

We can then compare the output and decide which one to go for

Lars

Thank you for the chat at Security Summit. So, I think we concluded that the 
direction we are going in is roughly correct.

In the meantime, I had talked to the LF. There is currently an initiative to 
provide the following

  *   General advice on how to choose and customize CoCs – almost certainly 
Contributor Covenant will be on that list
  *   A template and set of best practices on how to implement enforcement + 
training around it

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.

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

What do people think?

Regards
Lars

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Lars Kurth]

From: Rich Persaud 
Date: Friday, 16 August 2019 at 16:49
To: George Dunlap 
Cc: Lars Kurth , xen-devel 
, "minios-de...@lists.xenproject.org" 
, "mirageos-de...@lists.xenproject.org" 
, "win-pv-de...@lists.xenproject.org" 
, "committ...@xenproject.org" 

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

Snip

Hi George,

Thanks for the detailed response.  Lars noted that the proposed Xen CoC is 
nearly identical to Contributor Covenant, which has been adopted by many 
organizations, including teams at Intel and Google.  My comment, from 
https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/561686#561686

Without getting into the merits of Contributor Covenant, there is value in 
reusing an "upstream CoC" that has been vetted by many organizations and is 
being continually tested in the real world.


Similar to the "macro supply chain" topic:  if Xen Project must make changes to 
the upstream CoC, these can be done as a logical patch (rather than an orphaned 
fork) so we can incorporate upstream improvements.  The rationale for each diff 
against the upstream CoC can be in a revision-controlled doc, so that future 
CoC maintainers understand the reasoning behind each diff, as communities and 
contributors evolve.

Your discussion above clearly covers differences between Contributor Covenant 
and Xen's CoC, and could be translated to text suitable for commit messages, 
with one commit per diff from an upstream CoC.

Rich

This is not really productive. I was looking for concrete feedback, but we 
ended up with a long discussion with no actionable items that can help resolve 
the discussion.

How about the following:

  *   Make a proposal based on the Contributor Covenant
  *   Try and address some of the key customizations which I have been trying 
to make (which George outlined nicely)

This shouldn’t take much longer than the time you, George and I spent on this 
email thread already. You can follow the methodology you propose

We can then compare the output and decide which one to go for

Lars
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Rich Persaud]

On Aug 16, 2019, at 07:19, George Dunlap  wrote:
> 
> On 8/15/19 6:23 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>>> On Aug 9, 2019, at 13:48, Lars Kurth  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Hi Lars,
>> 
>>> 
>>> Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
>>> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc.
>>>  for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be 
>>> found here as well as inlined below
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing
>>>  
>>> 
>>> It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is attached). I 
>>> took the scope and enforcement sections from 
>>> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html and 
>>> simplified it rather than inventing something new.
>> 
>> Is there precedent for applying a legal contract (Code of Conduct) that was 
>> designed for physical space (conference event) to an online context?   Is 
>> there an existing Code of Conduct that was legally designed for a similar, 
>> online open-source community context, e.g. operating system or hypervisor or 
>> other systems-level software dev?
> 
> This is sort of a strange question.
> 
> Generally speaking, there was a link Lars pointed to in an earlier
> thread in preparation for this, making two suggestions about adopting a CoC:
> 
> 1. Don't create your own CoC from scratch.  Learn from other people's
> experiences, mistakes, and so on, rather than re-inventing the wheel.
> This will hopefully reduce the chance of re-hashing mistakes other
> communities have made.
> 
> 2. Don't copy-and-paste a CoC unmodified from another project.  Consider
> it, adapt it to your own community culture and situation.  This makes
> sure that the CoC is not a tick-box exercise, but that people in your
> community have thoughfully considered various issues and genuinely
> decided to commit to them.
> 
> I think both of those bits of advice are good; and it appears to me that
> this is exactly what Lars (with input from a number of others) has done.
> 
> There are two things that we want, in general:
> 
> 1. To cast a vision for what ideal contributor behavior should be
> 
> 2. To set a bar for minimum acceptable behavior, and a way for excluding
> people whose behavior consistently falls below that bar.
> 
> One area in particular where Lars thought other CoCs were weak was in
> trying to combine #1 and #2.  They need different responses.  #1 needs
> encouragement and vision.  #2 needs teeth: We need to be able to apply
> penalties and exclude people.
> 
> As a result, Lars has suggested (and many people have agreed), that we
> separate the two functions.  This document is about #2, not #1.  We plan
> to do #1 after #2 is completed.
> 
>>> # Expected Behavior
>>> All Xen Project community members are expected to behave in accordance with 
>>> professional standards, with both the Xen Project Code of Conduct as well 
>>> as their 
>>> respective employer’s policies governing appropriate workplace behavior, 
>>> and 
>>> applicable laws.
>> 
>> In the x86 community call where this was first discussed, I suggested that 
>> we try to define desirable behavior, which we would like to incentivize and 
>> promote.   In this current draft, we have a single sentence on positive 
>> behavior, with inclusion-by-reference to:
> 
> We plan on doing this, but in another document.
> 
>> If incorporation-by-reference is not sufficient, e.g. if we will maintain a 
>> blacklist of unacceptable behavior for collaborative, online open-source 
>> development, do we also need a whitelist of acceptable behavior?  Within Xen 
>> source code, we have been moving away from blacklists towards whitelists.
> 
> Unlike hypercalls, all human behavior cannot be enumerated; and if it
> could, 100% certainty cannot be obtained about what a certain behavior
> is, or even exactly what did or did not happen.  No matter what we write
> down, at some point, you're just going to have to either trust the
> people making the decisions.
> 
>>> # Unacceptable Behavior
>>> Harassment will not be tolerated in the Xen Project Community in any form, 
>>> including but not limited to harassment based on gender, gender identity 
>>> and 
>>> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, 
>>> race, 
>>> age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, level of experience, education, or 
>>> socio-economic status or any other status protected by laws in 
>>> jurisdictions in 
>>> which community members are based. Harassment includes the use of abusive, 
>>> offensive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing 
>>> photography 
>>> or recording, inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome 
>>> sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, publishing others' private 
>>> information such as a physical or electronic address without explicit 
>>> 

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

[George Dunlap]

On 8/15/19 6:23 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 2019, at 13:48, Lars Kurth  wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
> 
> Hi Lars,
> 
>>
>> Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
>> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc.
>>  for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be 
>> found here as well as inlined below
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>>
>> It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is attached). I 
>> took the scope and enforcement sections from 
>> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html and 
>> simplified it rather than inventing something new.
> 
> Is there precedent for applying a legal contract (Code of Conduct) that was 
> designed for physical space (conference event) to an online context?   Is 
> there an existing Code of Conduct that was legally designed for a similar, 
> online open-source community context, e.g. operating system or hypervisor or 
> other systems-level software dev?

This is sort of a strange question.

Generally speaking, there was a link Lars pointed to in an earlier
thread in preparation for this, making two suggestions about adopting a CoC:

1. Don't create your own CoC from scratch.  Learn from other people's
experiences, mistakes, and so on, rather than re-inventing the wheel.
This will hopefully reduce the chance of re-hashing mistakes other
communities have made.

2. Don't copy-and-paste a CoC unmodified from another project.  Consider
it, adapt it to your own community culture and situation.  This makes
sure that the CoC is not a tick-box exercise, but that people in your
community have thoughfully considered various issues and genuinely
decided to commit to them.

I think both of those bits of advice are good; and it appears to me that
this is exactly what Lars (with input from a number of others) has done.

There are two things that we want, in general:

1. To cast a vision for what ideal contributor behavior should be

2. To set a bar for minimum acceptable behavior, and a way for excluding
people whose behavior consistently falls below that bar.

One area in particular where Lars thought other CoCs were weak was in
trying to combine #1 and #2.  They need different responses.  #1 needs
encouragement and vision.  #2 needs teeth: We need to be able to apply
penalties and exclude people.

As a result, Lars has suggested (and many people have agreed), that we
separate the two functions.  This document is about #2, not #1.  We plan
to do #1 after #2 is completed.

>> # Expected Behavior
>> All Xen Project community members are expected to behave in accordance with 
>> professional standards, with both the Xen Project Code of Conduct as well as 
>> their 
>> respective employer’s policies governing appropriate workplace behavior, and 
>> applicable laws.
> 
> In the x86 community call where this was first discussed, I suggested that we 
> try to define desirable behavior, which we would like to incentivize and 
> promote.   In this current draft, we have a single sentence on positive 
> behavior, with inclusion-by-reference to:

We plan on doing this, but in another document.

> If incorporation-by-reference is not sufficient, e.g. if we will maintain a 
> blacklist of unacceptable behavior for collaborative, online open-source 
> development, do we also need a whitelist of acceptable behavior?  Within Xen 
> source code, we have been moving away from blacklists towards whitelists.

Unlike hypercalls, all human behavior cannot be enumerated; and if it
could, 100% certainty cannot be obtained about what a certain behavior
is, or even exactly what did or did not happen.  No matter what we write
down, at some point, you're just going to have to either trust the
people making the decisions.

>> # Unacceptable Behavior
>> Harassment will not be tolerated in the Xen Project Community in any form, 
>> including but not limited to harassment based on gender, gender identity and 
>> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, 
>> race, 
>> age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, level of experience, education, or 
>> socio-economic status or any other status protected by laws in jurisdictions 
>> in 
>> which community members are based. Harassment includes the use of abusive, 
>> offensive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing 
>> photography 
>> or recording, inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome 
>> sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, publishing others' private 
>> information such as a physical or electronic address without explicit 
>> permission
> 
> Picking one item at random:  would a conference-originated blacklist 
> prohibition be appropriate for online open-source development?  E.g. if 
> someone's email address were included in a xen-devel 

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

[Lars Kurth]

> On 15 Aug 2019, at 20:08, Rich Persaud  wrote:
> 
> Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc
>  
> .
>  for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be 
> found here as well as inlined below
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> 
> It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is attached). 
> I took the scope and enforcement sections from 
> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html 
>  
> and simplified it rather than inventing something new.
 
   Is there precedent for applying a legal contract (Code of Conduct) that 
 was designed for physical space (conference event) to an online context?   
 Is there an existing Code of Conduct that was legally designed for a 
 similar, online open-source community context, e.g. operating system or 
 hypervisor or other systems-level software dev?
 
 If you look at 
 https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html 
  or 
 many other examples, what we ended up with is almost identical. The same 
 is true for most other CoCs which are used as “gold standard”.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the pointer, that's exactly what I was hoping to find.  Here is 
>>> some text from Contributor Covenant:
>>> 
>>> "Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be 
>>> reported by contacting the project team at [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS]. All 
>>> complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response 
>>> that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project 
>>> team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter 
>>> of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be 
>>> posted separately.
>>> Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in 
>>> good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by 
>>> other members of the project’s leadership."
>>> 
>>> This is different from the proposed CoC, because:
>>> 
>>> (a) repercussions are not specified, i.e. they can be contextual
>>> (b) there is a confidentiality provision
>>> (c) decisions are made by open-source project leadership, not a separate 
>>> "CoC team" with TBD members, electoral process and governance 
>>> 
>>> Can Xen Project adopt Contributor Covenant directly?  It has a large base 
>>> of adopters, including Intel and Google projects, so we would benefit from 
>>> upstream improvements as the CoC is tested in the real world:  
>>> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters 
>>> 
>> 
>> We most definitely could and I am open to the idea. However, when Linux 
>> adopted it, there was significant controversy because of the origin of the 
>> Contributor Covenant
>> 
>> See https://itsfoss.com/linux-code-of-conduct/ 
>> 
>> 
>> I am not sure what the risk would be if we followed Linux
>> 
>> However, we can address all of the above with what we have: The section you 
>> quoted was indeed from the covenant (see attribution) and I simply modified 
>> it based on the discussion we had at the summit. 
>> 
>> 
>> a) We could leave the repercussion section out - I think it is clearer to 
>> have one, but we can clearly debate the pros and cons of not having one
>> b) There is a confidentiality provision: "The Xen Project’s CoC team is 
>> obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an 
>> incident."
>> c) In the design session at the summit the present project leadership team 
>> members felt we should have a CoC team, which is why I changed it
>> 
>> In any case, the Covenant suggested to customise the template to our needs. 
>> And that's what I have done.
>> 
>> It was also interesting that when I started with the LF events CoC, I still 
>> ended up with something very similar to most of the other CoCs out there
> 
> Differences remain, e.g. Contributor Covenant has a whitelist and blacklist 
> of acceptable behaviors, the proposed Xen CoC only has a blacklist.  Although 
> you say the CoC is not a legal document, the proposed Xen statement of 
> acceptable behaviors does mention "applicable laws", which is absent from 
> Contributor Covenant.

> Without getting into the merits of 

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

[Rich Persaud]

On Aug 15, 2019, at 14:01, Lars Kurth  wrote:
> 
> Hi Rich,
>  
> thanks for the feedback. I am going to
>  
> On 15/08/2019, 18:23, "Rich Persaud"  wrote:
>  
> > On Aug 9, 2019, at 13:48, Lars Kurth  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi Lars,
>
> >
> > Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc.
>  for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be found 
> here as well as inlined below
> > 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is 
> attached). I took the scope and enforcement sections from 
> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html and 
> simplified it rather than inventing something new.
>
> Is there precedent for applying a legal contract (Code of Conduct) that 
> was designed for physical space (conference event) to an online context?   Is 
> there an existing Code of Conduct that was legally designed for a similar, 
> online open-source community context, e.g. operating system or hypervisor or 
> other systems-level software dev?
>  
> If you look at 
> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html or many 
> other examples, what we ended up with is almost identical. The same is true 
> for most other CoCs which are used as “gold standard”.

Thanks for the pointer, that's exactly what I was hoping to find.  Here is some 
text from Contributor Covenant:

"Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be 
reported by contacting the project team at [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS]. All 
complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that 
is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is 
obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an 
incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted 
separately.
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good 
faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other 
members of the project’s leadership."

This is different from the proposed CoC, because:

  (a) repercussions are not specified, i.e. they can be contextual
  (b) there is a confidentiality provision
  (c) decisions are made by open-source project leadership, not a separate "CoC 
team" with TBD members, electoral process and governance 

Can Xen Project adopt Contributor Covenant directly?  It has a large base of 
adopters, including Intel and Google projects, so we would benefit from 
upstream improvements as the CoC is tested in the real world:  
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters

Rich
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Lars Kurth]

Hi Rich,



thanks for the feedback. I am going to



On 15/08/2019, 18:23, "Rich Persaud"  wrote:



> On Aug 9, 2019, at 13:48, Lars Kurth  wrote:

>

> Hi all,



Hi Lars,



>

> Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc.
 for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be found 
here as well as inlined below

> 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing

>

> It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is attached). 
I took the scope and enforcement sections from 
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html and 
simplified it rather than inventing something new.



Is there precedent for applying a legal contract (Code of Conduct) that was 
designed for physical space (conference event) to an online context?   Is there 
an existing Code of Conduct that was legally designed for a similar, online 
open-source community context, e.g. operating system or hypervisor or other 
systems-level software dev?



If you look at 
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html or many 
other examples, what we ended up with is almost identical. The same is true for 
most other CoCs which are used as “gold standard”.

Also of course, the Code of Conduct is not a legal or legally enforceable 
document



> # Expected Behavior

> All Xen Project community members are expected to behave in accordance 
with

> professional standards, with both the Xen Project Code of Conduct as well 
as their

> respective employer’s policies governing appropriate workplace behavior, 
and

> applicable laws.



In the x86 community call where this was first discussed, I suggested that 
we try to define desirable behavior, which we would like to incentivize and 
promote.   In this current draft, we have a single sentence on positive 
behavior, with inclusion-by-reference to:



- professional standards

- corporate policy

- city, state and national/federal law



If it is sufficient to define acceptable behavior by reference to external 
governance institutions and cultural practices, can we do the same for 
unacceptable behavior, i.e. anything that violates the above?



If incorporation-by-reference is not sufficient, e.g. if we will maintain a 
blacklist of unacceptable behavior for collaborative, online open-source 
development, do we also need a whitelist of acceptable behavior?  Within Xen 
source code, we have been moving away from blacklists towards whitelists.


I think we agreed all to look at desirable behaviour, but cover this elsewhere. 
This is what is covered in the “Our Pledge” section at the end. I just have not 
gotten round to write this yet as it is a lot more complex. When this was 
discussed, I thought we decided to keep the desirable behaviour out of the CoC 
as otherwise people may get the impression that if they come across as for 
example unfriendly, there may be consequences.



> # Unacceptable Behavior

> Harassment will not be tolerated in the Xen Project Community in any form,

> including but not limited to harassment based on gender, gender identity 
and

> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body 
size, race,

> age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, level of experience, education, or

> socio-economic status or any other status protected by laws in 
jurisdictions in

> which community members are based. Harassment includes the use of abusive,

> offensive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing 
photography

> or recording, inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome

> sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, publishing others' private

> information such as a physical or electronic address without explicit 
permission



Picking one item at random:  would a conference-originated blacklist 
prohibition be appropriate for online open-source development?  E.g. if 
someone's email address were included in a xen-devel thread (on the cc line), 
without obtaining explicit permission, would that be unacceptable behavior for 
a Xen developer?  That could disqualify much of the current development 
community.



Again, the list is very similar to those in most other CoC’s. So, I think the 
answer is yes



> Any report of harassment within the Xen Project community will be 
addressed

> swiftly. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to

> comply immediately. Anyone who witnesses or is subjected to unacceptable

> behavior should notify the Xen Project’s CoC team via 
cond...@xenproject.org.

>

> # Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior

> If a participant engages in harassing 

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

[Rich Persaud]

> On Aug 9, 2019, at 13:48, Lars Kurth  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,

Hi Lars,

> 
> Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc.
>  for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be found 
> here as well as inlined below
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is attached). I 
> took the scope and enforcement sections from 
> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html and 
> simplified it rather than inventing something new.

Is there precedent for applying a legal contract (Code of Conduct) that was 
designed for physical space (conference event) to an online context?   Is there 
an existing Code of Conduct that was legally designed for a similar, online 
open-source community context, e.g. operating system or hypervisor or other 
systems-level software dev?


> You can provide feedback by commenting on the google doc or by replying to 
> the in-lined version below. 
> I expect it will some more discussion to get consensus. 
> 
> Note that I am not very attached to some of the terms, such as "Xen Project 
> CoC  Team" and in some cases "participant" should probably be replaced by 
> community 
> members. 
> 
> But I felt, we should have something more concrete to discuss compared to 
> previous discussions.
> 
> A Code of Conduct is a project wide policy change: thus, all subprojects 
> lists are CC'ed
> 
> Regards
> Lars
> 
> Here is the actual text
> ---
> # Our Pledge
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as 
> community 
> members of the Xen Project pledge to making participation in our project and 
> our 
> community a harassment-free experience for everyone.
> 
> We believe that a Code of Conduct can help create a harassment-free 
> environment, 
> but is not sufficient to create a welcoming environment on its own: guidance 
> on creating 
> a welcoming environment, how to communicate in an effective and friendly way, 
> etc. 
> can be found .
> 
> # Scope
> This Code of Conduct applies within all Xen Project project spaces, and it 
> also applies 
> when an individual is representing the Xen Project or its community in public 
> spaces. 
> Examples of representing the Xen Project include using an official project 
> email address, 
> posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed 
> representative 
> at an online or offline event. 
> 
> # Expected Behavior
> All Xen Project community members are expected to behave in accordance with 
> professional standards, with both the Xen Project Code of Conduct as well as 
> their 
> respective employer’s policies governing appropriate workplace behavior, and 
> applicable laws.

In the x86 community call where this was first discussed, I suggested that we 
try to define desirable behavior, which we would like to incentivize and 
promote.   In this current draft, we have a single sentence on positive 
behavior, with inclusion-by-reference to:

- professional standards
- corporate policy
- city, state and national/federal law

If it is sufficient to define acceptable behavior by reference to external 
governance institutions and cultural practices, can we do the same for 
unacceptable behavior, i.e. anything that violates the above?

If incorporation-by-reference is not sufficient, e.g. if we will maintain a 
blacklist of unacceptable behavior for collaborative, online open-source 
development, do we also need a whitelist of acceptable behavior?  Within Xen 
source code, we have been moving away from blacklists towards whitelists.


> # Unacceptable Behavior
> Harassment will not be tolerated in the Xen Project Community in any form, 
> including but not limited to harassment based on gender, gender identity and 
> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, 
> race, 
> age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, level of experience, education, or 
> socio-economic status or any other status protected by laws in jurisdictions 
> in 
> which community members are based. Harassment includes the use of abusive, 
> offensive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing 
> photography 
> or recording, inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome 
> sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, publishing others' private 
> information such as a physical or electronic address without explicit 
> permission

Picking one item at random:  would a conference-originated blacklist 
prohibition be appropriate for online open-source development?  E.g. if 
someone's email address were included in a xen-devel thread (on the cc line), 
without obtaining explicit permission, would that be unacceptable behavior for 
a Xen developer?  That could disqualify 

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

[Lars Kurth]

Perfect: I updated this also in the google doc. I will leave the review open 
for a week or two (we do have summer holidays after all) and let people 
comment. I can then send a proper proposal, followed by a vote
Lars

On 12/08/2019, 15:35, "George Dunlap"  wrote:

On 8/12/19 3:27 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> I am wondering how you feel about the usage of  "participant". There are 
> a few instances left in the text. 
> 
> "Any report of harassment within the Xen Project community will be 
addressed
> swiftly. Participants asked to stop ..."
> 
> # Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior
> If a participant engages in harassing behaviour
> 
> I would probably also want to replace this with "Community member asked 
..." and "If a community member engages in ..."

Seems reasonable to me.

 -George


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[George Dunlap]

On 8/9/19 6:48 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc.
>  for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be found 
> here as well as inlined below
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is attached). I 
> took the scope and enforcement sections from 
> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html and 
> simplified it rather than inventing something new.
> 
> You can provide feedback by commenting on the google doc or by replying to 
> the in-lined version below. 
> I expect it will some more discussion to get consensus. 
> 
> Note that I am not very attached to some of the terms, such as "Xen Project 
> CoC  Team" and in some cases "participant" should probably be replaced by 
> community 
> members. 
> 
> But I felt, we should have something more concrete to discuss compared to 
> previous discussions.
> 
> A Code of Conduct is a project wide policy change: thus, all subprojects 
> lists are CC'ed

Thanks for doing this Lars.  I think this is a step forward.

I have a couple of comments, but only on the wording.

> 
> Regards
> Lars
> 
> Here is the actual text
> ---
> # Our Pledge
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as 
> community 
> members of the Xen Project pledge to making participation in our project and 
> our 
> community a harassment-free experience for everyone.

To me "pledge" means "promise"; and I don't think we can promise anyone
that they'll have a harassment-free experience.  I might say, "we ...
are committed to making participation ... a harassment-free experience";
or "we ... pledge to maintain a harassment-free experience" or something
like that.

> # Unacceptable Behavior
> Harassment will not be tolerated in the Xen Project Community in any form, 
> including but not limited to harassment based on gender, gender identity and 
> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, 
> race, 
> age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, level of experience, education, or 
> socio-economic status or any other status protected by laws in jurisdictions 
> in 
> which community members are based.

> Harassment includes the use of abusive, 
> offensive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing 
> photography 
> or recording, inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome 
> sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, publishing others' private 
> information such as a physical or electronic address without explicit 
> permission 
> and other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a 
> professional setting. 

Should we put "such as physical or electronic address[es]" in parentheses?

Also, I'm in favor of the Oxford Comma (so a comma after 'permission').

I might say "or any other conduct"; for some reason it sounds more
natural to me.

> Any report of harassment within the Xen Project community will be addressed 
> swiftly. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to 
> comply immediately. Anyone who witnesses or is subjected to unacceptable 
> behavior should notify the Xen Project’s CoC team via cond...@xenproject.org.
> 
> # Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior
> If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the Xen Project’s CoC team 
> may 
> take any action it deems appropriate, ranging from issuance of a warning to 
> the 
> offending individual to expulsion from the Xen Project community.

I realize by saying "range" you probably meant to include this, but I
think spelling out "temporary suspension" as a possible consequence.  E.g.:

"If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the Xen Project's CoC
team will investigate and take an action it deems appropriate against
the offending individual.  This may include issuing a warning, temporary
suspension from mailing lists or commit rights, or expulsion from the
XenProject community."

That's all I had; thanks again, Lars.

 -George

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[George Dunlap]

On 8/12/19 3:27 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> I am wondering how you feel about the usage of  "participant". There are 
> a few instances left in the text. 
> 
> "Any report of harassment within the Xen Project community will be addressed
> swiftly. Participants asked to stop ..."
> 
> # Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior
> If a participant engages in harassing behaviour
> 
> I would probably also want to replace this with "Community member asked ..." 
> and "If a community member engages in ..."

Seems reasonable to me.

 -George

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

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

[Lars Kurth]

Hi George,

On 12/08/2019, 12:35, "George Dunlap"  wrote:

On 8/9/19 6:48 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Following the discussion we had at the Developer Summit (see 
https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Design_Sessions_2019#Community_Issues_.2F_Improvements_-_Communication.2C_Code_of_Conduct.2C_etc.
 for notes) I put together a draft for the Code of Conduct which can be found 
here as well as inlined below
> 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NnWdU_VnC1N_ZzxQG6jU9fnY2GPVCcfPJT5KY61WXJM/edit?usp=sharing
 
> 
> It is based on the LF Events CoC as we agreed on (the diff is attached). 
I took the scope and enforcement sections from 
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html and 
simplified it rather than inventing something new.
> 
> You can provide feedback by commenting on the google doc or by replying 
to the in-lined version below. 
> I expect it will some more discussion to get consensus. 
> 
> Note that I am not very attached to some of the terms, such as "Xen 
Project CoC  Team" and in some cases "participant" should probably be replaced 
by community 
> members. 
> 
> But I felt, we should have something more concrete to discuss compared to 
previous discussions.
> 
> A Code of Conduct is a project wide policy change: thus, all subprojects 
lists are CC'ed

Thanks for doing this Lars.  I think this is a step forward.

I have a couple of comments, but only on the wording.

> 
> Regards
> Lars
> 
> Here is the actual text
> ---
> # Our Pledge
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as 
community 
> members of the Xen Project pledge to making participation in our project 
and our 
> community a harassment-free experience for everyone.

To me "pledge" means "promise"; and I don't think we can promise anyone
that they'll have a harassment-free experience.  I might say, "we ...
are committed to making participation ... a harassment-free experience";
or "we ... pledge to maintain a harassment-free experience" or something
like that.

This comes directly from the Contributor Covenant v1.4
But I also like "we ... are committed to making participation ... a 
harassment-free 
experience" better then pledge.

> # Unacceptable Behavior
> Harassment will not be tolerated in the Xen Project Community in any 
form, 
> including but not limited to harassment based on gender, gender identity 
and 
> expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body 
size, race, 
> age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, level of experience, education, or 
> socio-economic status or any other status protected by laws in 
jurisdictions in 
> which community members are based.

> Harassment includes the use of abusive, 
> offensive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing 
photography 
> or recording, inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and 
unwelcome 
> sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, publishing others' private 
> information such as a physical or electronic address without explicit 
permission 
> and other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a 
> professional setting. 

Should we put "such as physical or electronic address[es]" in parentheses?

Fine with me

Also, I'm in favor of the Oxford Comma (so a comma after 'permission').

I might say "or any other conduct"; for some reason it sounds more
natural to me.

Either works

> Any report of harassment within the Xen Project community will be 
addressed 
> swiftly. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected 
to 
> comply immediately. Anyone who witnesses or is subjected to unacceptable 
> behavior should notify the Xen Project’s CoC team via 
cond...@xenproject.org.
> 
> # Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior
> If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the Xen Project’s CoC 
team may 
> take any action it deems appropriate, ranging from issuance of a warning 
to the 
> offending individual to expulsion from the Xen Project community.

I realize by saying "range" you probably meant to include this, but I
think spelling out "temporary suspension" as a possible consequence.  E.g.:

"If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the Xen Project's CoC
team will investigate and take an action it deems appropriate against
the offending individual.  This may include issuing a warning, temporary
suspension from mailing lists or commit rights, or expulsion from the
XenProject community."

That looks good

That's all I had; thanks again, Lars.

I am wondering how you feel about the usage of  "participant". There are 
a few instances left in the text. 

"Any report of harassment within the Xen Project