On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:07:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 30/03/21 15:02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Consider someone is kicked out from another project for violation > > of that project's CoC, that would also be considered a violation > > under QEMU's CoC. This qualifier is explicitly stating that the CoC > > violation in the other project has no bearing on whether that > > person can now start participating in QEMU. I think that's a bad > > mixed message we're sending there. It is especially poor if the > > victim from the other project is also a QEMU contributor. > > My wording is actually already broader than what is in the contributor > covenant: > > This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces, and it also > applies when an individual is representing the project or its > community in public spaces. Examples of representing a project or > community include using an official project e-mail address, posting > via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed > representative at an online or offline event. > > That is, the Code of Conduct would not apply to someone saying "the QEMU > SCSI maintainer rejected my patches, he is an idiot" on Twitter. My > proposal sought to find a middle ground, where that person could be > reasonably considered to be "acting as a member of the project or its > community". > > > The wording Thomas' draft has > > > > In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may > > affect a person's ability to participate within them. > > > > doesn't require QEMU to take action. It just set a statement > > of intent that gives QEMU the freedom to evaluate whether it is > > reasonable to take action to protect its contributors, should a > > contributor wish to raise an issue that occurred outside QEMU. > > There have been in the past cases of external people asking projects to ban > contributors because of views they held on social media. The Contributor > Covenant initially included no limit to the application of the CoC and only > added a limitation after the author herself was involved in such an > episode[1][2]. > > I would prefer to avoid putting QEMU in that situation, and limit the > applicability code of conduct as much as possible to conflicts within the > community. > > The Mozilla participation guidelines (2165 words :)) acknowledge that "it is > possible for actions taken outside of Mozilla's online or in person spaces > to have a deep impact on community health" but also admit that "this is an > active topic in the diversity and inclusion realm"[3]. > > The Django code of conduct seems to be in the minority in having such a > broad applicability, while the wording in the Contributor Covenant seems to > be more informed by actual experience.
Fair enough, as I mentioned previously, I think it is better to go with commonly accepted approach, than to have something unique to QEMU. So on that basis, I'm fine with your suggestion Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
