My personal opinion is twofold: * The file shouldn't be mandatory because all policies should (and do) apply automatically, there should be no magic spell to enable them on a case by case basis. CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md is mostly a GitHub convention that allows that site to indicate CoC terms in its interface.
* However, users who disagree with the rules of using our resources shouldn't be using them. If you're using Gerrit/Phabricator/wikis/lists/etc, you're bound by our community's rules as far as interactions there go. Your personal interactions related to these extensions are kinda gray area, however it's important to remember that these don't just happen out of nothing. For example, if someone asks you a question related to your extension, this is probably because they've found it on mw.org and downloaded it from our Git or ExtensionDistributor. Therefore, while we don't want to play thought police we at the same time can't pretend we don't care about them non-private aspects. That being said, which parts of the CoC do you have a problem with? On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Yaron Koren <ya...@wikiworks.com> wrote: > Hi, > > CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md is a file that was added to most MediaWiki extensions > almost exactly a year ago. It reads, in full: > > "The development of this software is covered by a [Code of Conduct]( > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct)." > > This file was added on the grounds that "Now that we have a Code of Conduct > we need to advertise it." You can see the Phabricator task for adding the > file everywhere, including a lot of debate over whether it's a good idea, > here: > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T165540 > > I removed these files from all my extension directories pretty soon after > they were added, on the grounds that I just think it's false information - > the development of my extensions happens mostly on my and others' laptops, > in private emails and so forth - not "Wikimedia spaces", and thus not > covered by the Code of Conduct, according to the CoC. Some corporate > person, for example, downloading my software, could see that file and think > that they're bound by the Code of Conduct when sending me a patch, when in > fact (for better or worse) they're not. > > That's how it went until two days ago, when Antoine Musso submitted a patch > for my Site Settings extension (I don't know why that one specifically), > re-adding the file. I rejected the patch, on the same grounds as before, > but another developer, Chad Horohoe, overrode me and merged it in. That led > to a discussion featuring Antoine, Chad, a few other WMF developers, and > me, which you can find here: > > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/437555/ > > Some of the (unbelievable) highlights: > > - From Antoine: "Well then can we just archive this repository please?" > > - From Chad: "Yeah no that's not how it works. If it's being hosted on > gerrit.wikimedia.org, it needs a CoC file. If you object to that, you can > find hosting elsewhere." > > - From Amir Sarabadani: "Having CoC removed seems violation of CoC itself." > > That last one is interesting, because the Code of Conduct doesn't mention > CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at all. Which I would have thought Amir would know, > given that he's now a member of the "Code of Conduct Committee". (!) > > Actually, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md isn't really mentioned anywhere - it was never > voted on, and I don't believe it was even a directive from WMF management. > As far as I know, this was the work of a few solitary (can I say "rogue"?) > WMF developers who happen to have the ability to modify all the > repositories - and, I guess, are into advertising. > > Now, we could talk about whether the CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file is a good idea > - or whether it's even accurate - but I'd rather talk about the most > pressing issue, which is that a few developers have seemingly threatened to > delete my extensions from the Wikimedia Git repository. > That leads me to a few questions: > > - Do developers like Chad Horohoe have the right to delete my extensions > from the repository? (I'm guessing they have the ability.) > > - Is CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md now really mandatory? > > - Is there some kind of chain of command, or process, for determining these > things, or are we in sort of a Wild West situation where whoever has the > ability to modify or delete other people's extensions can do so without > consequences? > > Any thoughts or insight on these questions are welcome. There are some > disturbing implications to that thread, that I'd like to see resolved. > > -Yaron > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]]) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
