Here's my 2 cents. License is one example for me, if you are using gerrit and all of WMF infrastructure (from jenkins to translatewiki integration) you have to publish your code with at least one OSI-approved license. You can't say "All rights reserved" and still use all the benefits that came with donor's money [1] and this has to be explicit by adding LICENSE or COPYING file (or adding a note on top of the files, any sort of notion, etc.)
The same goes with CoC, you can't use the benefits while avoiding to be hold responsible for your acts, being harsh towards others, etc. Some might disagree but I don't think this is up for discussion. The point of making this explicit by adding CoC.md in the files to make sure people see it, newcomers feel welcome, etc. might be up for discussion. Even though, while there is no clear body of decision making, people on all sides have strong feelings about it, and there is no group responsible for mediation, etc. This is not going anywhere. Three groups that can decide about it are, "RelEng" who are responsible for maintaining gerrit, "Technical engagement team", or "TechCom". One useful discussion that can happen here is that who can decide about this matter and leave the decision to them. Maybe a voting in mediawiki is also an option. One note particularly about this incident, I personally would be happy if Yaron thought the wording is wrong, put the file back with a better wording, like "gerrit part of development of this extension is covered by the WM CoC". It would make everyone happy. And also, it would send the proper signal to people who want to contribute to know where they should feel welcome and where they can't have that assumption. For me personally and after this stuff, I wouldn't touch any code Yaron is developing outside of gerrit with one-yard stick but I'm fine with making patches in gerrit in his extensions because I know it's covered by CoC. But what happened? He reverted my commit with the commit message of "No Thanks", like I offered him a dessert :) And in here, called my comments (and my colleagues) "unbelievable" I don't see that productive and constructive. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#7._Licensing_of_Content On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:28 PM Brian Wolff <[email protected]> wrote: > Taking a step back here... > > I agree with you in principle...but > > Shared spaces imply that occasionally disputes are going to arise as to > what belongs in a repo. If we dont have a fair method of resolving such > disputes (/my way or the highway/ is not fair), then this model is not > going to work. > > -- > Brian > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018, Brion Vibber <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd just like to apologize for dragging the other thread into this one > and > > being overly personal and failing to assume good faith. > > > > That was a failing on my part, and not good practice. > > > > Please if you respond further to this thread, treat only the narrow issue > > of ownership / maintainership expectations and where/how we should be > more > > clear on it. > > > > Further discussion on people's motives about the code of conduct will > > likely not be productive for anyone on this thread. > > > > My apologies to all; I should do better. You all deserve better. > > > > -- brion > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
