The most likely way for people to see codes of conduct is through repositories, which lets them know they have some way to combat harassment in the tool they're using to try to contribute to a particular repository. It makes sense to have a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in the repos; however, if all the repos are using the same policy, it's often better to have a minimal CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md that simply says "This repo is governed by the blah blah code of conduct, specified here: <link>". This makes it possible to have a single boilerplate code of conduct without needing to update every repo whenever the CoC changes.
It's a reasonable ask to have the file there, and this discussion feels like a thinly veiled argument against CoCs as a whole. If you're so against the md file, or against the CoC as a whole, github and/or gitlab are fine places to host a repository. On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:39 PM, John <phoenixoverr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Honestly I find forcing documentation into repos to be abrasive, and > overstepping the bounds of the CoC.I also find the behavior of those > pushing such an approach to be hostile and overly aggressive. Why do you > need to force a copy of the CoC into every repo? Why not keep it in a > central location? What kind of mess would you need to cleanup if for some > reason you needed to adjust the contents of that file? Instead of having > one location to update you now have 800+ copies that need fixed. > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Yaron Koren <ya...@wikiworks.com> wrote: > > > Chris Koerner <nobelx at gmail.com> wrote: > > > “Please just assume for the sake of this discussion that (a) I'm > willing > > > to abide by the rules of the Code of Conduct, and (b) I don't want the > > > CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file in my extensions.” > > > Ok, hear me out here. What if I told you those two things are > > > incompatible? That abiding by the community agreements requires the > file > > > as an explicit declaration of said agreement. That is to say, if we had > > > a discussion about amending the CoC to be explicit about this > expectation > > > you wouldn’t have issues with including it? Or at least you’d be OK > with > > > it? > > > > Brian is right that adding a requirement to include this file to the CoC > > would be an odd move. But, if it did happen, I don't know - I suppose I'd > > have two choices: either include the files or remove my code. I would be > an > > improvement over the current situation in at least one way: we would know > > that rules are still created in an orderly, consensus-like way, as > opposed > > to now, where a small group of developers can apparently make up rules as > > they go along. > > > > -Yaron > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
