> On Jun 23, 2015, at 1:49 PM, David Reid <dr...@dreid.org> wrote: > > So while it'd be nice for the PSF CoC to be updated such that it was > enforceable I think that should block adoption of a CoC by the Twisted > Project.
I hope that you meant >> I don't think that should block adoption… unless you meant you thought it should block adoption of the PSF CoC? In any case, to try to cover some concerns raised so far: >> Why the Django CoC rather than the PSF (or, the quite-similar Contributor >> Covenant)? There are two reasons: specificity, and reporting. Specificity is important because of course, everyone wants to be reasonable. The point of having a code of conduct is outlining what "reasonable" means in our specific context. Given the difficulties the software industry has had in the last couple of decades with respecting its marginalized members, it's important to take that context into account and say what (sadly) might not be obvious to people. Clarity around how reporting violations works is important because people who are already feeling harassed in their day-to-day existence are often not going to be comfortable poking around trying to figure out how to deal with a violation of the code on their own. Most likely, they will simply quietly exit the community. So it should be as easy as possible to report. >> Why isn't this a fork of an existing CoC? I agree that this is a problem. Django does not appear to have their CoC in an easily-forkable format. Perhaps we should contact the Django project and ask them to rectify that so that we can make minor tweaks. We also do need minor tweaks, because the information about contact points for reporting has to be different for different projects. I'd also like to raise two issues of my own. In his original message, Moshe said this: > I think, and hope, that our IRC channel, our issue system and mailing list > have been a friendly, pleasant place. For the most part, I believe this is true, and I think we have managed to be a welcoming and pleasant environment for all concerned. However, I don't want anyone to get a false sense of confidence from this, and think that we're doing great since we've never had any incidents. The nature of such incidents is to remain private. In Twisted's decade-plus of history, especially on IRC, I have had to personally adjudicate several disputes, and we have definitely had potential contributors quietly disappear from the community due to apparent hostility or inappropriate remarks. We have certainly had to ban people from the channel, on at least one occasion permanently. There have not been any particularly severe, particularly public or particularly recent incidents, but there has definitely been some unpleasantness at times. So, while I do believe we are doing well, there is unquestionably room to improve. Thank you all so very much for not making me type that as a reply to anyone saying we don't need a CoC ;-). Also, I would like to stress that I personally believe that this is a 1.0-release type of effort, and in no way a finished product. I have lots of concerns with fairness and transparency in the way disputes are handled, and the list of possible responses, but what we have right now (i.e.: the personal judgement of whatever committer happens to be online at the time) is definitely far worse. So I expect that the work will continue and we will see revisions to this, hopefully in collaboration with other projects so that Twisted developers aren't taking this on, Django being the obvious example. -glyph
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
