[Twisted-Python] Proposal -- Code of Conduct

Glyph

2015-06-21 09:08:55 UTC

Thanks for taking this on, Moshe.

Post by Moshe Zadka
I think, and hope, that our IRC channel, our issue system and mailing list have been a friendly, pleasant place. This is an attempt to clarify what we mean by a "friendly, pleasant place".
After some discussion on IRC, I volunteered to write up a Code of Conduct for Twisted. It is mostly an adaptation of Django's CoC -- I think Django has a nice track record of commitment to diversity, and, of course, we expect our communities to overlap.

The one thing I'm wondering here is why we have our own CoC. Particularly...

Post by Moshe Zadka
My current draft, including instructions on how to build it, is in https://github.com/moshez/twisted-coc <https://github.com/moshez/twisted-coc> . I have intentionally not made the built documents available, in an attempt to avoid someone picking them up before they're approved by us.

Why isn't this repository either (A) just a simple text file saying "we have adopted the Django CoC" or (B) a very small fork of something else? One of the concerns is licensing; if the text comes via Django, Django credits the "Speak Up!" project, which is CC-BY, apparently from this repository: <https://github.com/jnoller/talk-mentorship>. Another is... is Twisted really distinct enough to need its own CoC? Just s/Django/Twisted might be good enough? (Since this is not a fork, figuring out if anything else has changed is rather tedious, even after having read both ;)).

Thanks again,

-glyph

Hynek Schlawack

2015-06-21 11:00:09 UTC

Post by Moshe Zadka
I am sure everyone understands that the Twisted community would love more diversity. While it is hard to achieve, it should be easy to remove one of the obvious blockers -- making underrepresented groups feel more welcome.

Thanks for taking this on, Moshe.

Why isn't this repository either (A) just a simple text file saying "we have adopted the Django CoC" or (B) a very small fork of something else? One of the concerns is licensing; if the text comes via Django, Django credits the "Speak Up!" project, which is CC-BY, apparently from this repository: <https://github.com/jnoller/talk-mentorship <https://github.com/jnoller/talk-mentorship>>. Another is... is Twisted really distinct enough to need its own CoC? Just s/Django/Twisted might be good enough? (Since this is not a fork, figuring out if anything else has changed is rather tedious, even after having read both ;)).

I wonder whether it might make sense to just say we adopt https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ <https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/> ?

What I would really love is if we could have our own diversity statement like Django has: https://www.djangoproject.com/diversity/ <https://www.djangoproject.com/diversity/>

Cheers,
âh

Amber "Hawkie" Brown

2015-06-21 11:30:12 UTC

Thanks for taking this on, Moshe.

Post by Moshe Zadka
My current draft, including instructions on how to build it, is in https://github.com/moshez/twisted-coc . I have intentionally not made the built documents available, in an attempt to avoid someone picking them up before they're approved by us.

I wonder whether it might make sense to just say we adopt https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ ?
What I would really love is if we could have our own diversity statement like Django has: https://www.djangoproject.com/diversity/

The Django one is more explicit -- it's rather sad that it needs to be, but it does lay out more directly the unacceptable behaviours.

That being said, it's not an unchangeable document -- if it doesn't suit the community's needs, we can modify it to suit.

Cheers,
âh
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

anatoly techtonik

2015-06-21 11:35:31 UTC

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Amber "Hawkie" Brown

Thanks for taking this on, Moshe.

The Django one is more explicit -- it's rather sad that it needs to be, but it does lay out more directly the unacceptable behaviours.
That being said, it's not an unchangeable document -- if it doesn't suit the community's needs, we can modify it to suit.

So that CoCs are just a set of rules to ban users expressed in a vague
legal form, so that people can not complain, because they don't
understand. Is that right? =)

--
anatoly t.

Moshe Zadka

2015-06-21 15:46:45 UTC

Some repilies to all the issues mentioned here:

1. I think we should definitely maintain our own copy. Sorry for it not
being a fork, the only non-formatting changes I made are things that
referrred to the Django-run events (since we don't run events -- I did
replace some of this language with mention of the meetup group). As for
CC-BY: I did refer to the Django CoC, I thought CC-BY only refers to the
"last point of copying". If it makes sense to add Speak Up! to the mention
for license compliance, I'm happy to do that.

2. The Django CoC specifically has a change procedure. I did not copy that
part over, since our organization is a lot less formal -- I'm pretty sure
it's "if the PLC agrees". I think it's a problem that we don't have the
names of the people on the PLC on our wiki, but this is a separate issue.
[It should be rectified, as well as clarifying the rules for how the PLC
acquires/retires members.

3. I considered briefly the PSF one. I think it is *way* under-specified. I
want to have something that's clear. I think Django, specifically, has a
pretty good track record of promoting diversity and the PSF has a...worse
one.

4. A CoC has several purposes, and "banning people" is actually pretty far
down the list. The first reason is that we assume most people are good
people, or at least wish to follow the rules, and having clear rules about
what's not acceptable will hopefully lead to people voluntarily complying.
The second reason is to send out a message to underrepresented groups: "we
value you, and will protect your right to be treated with dignity in our
community". While this does not solve diversity problems by itself, it is
an important step. A distant third, in my opinion, is the banning of people
-- not least because this issue has not really come up [some people got
banned from IRC, I believe, but usually not for the kind of reasons
described in the CoC, and I don't remember people getting banned from Trac
or the ML]. I really did mean what I said in my first e-mail: we do try to
be an open and inclusive place. We are *already* complying with the CoC.
[If you subscribe to a Hyackean view of law and legislation, this is law,
not legislation.]

5. Not a reply to an e-mail, but I like to publicly call out Hyneck for
actually reading through the CoC, noticing a couple of mistakes and sending
me a pull-request. It is much appreciated!

Thanks everyone who took the time to read and think about this important
issue,
Moshe Z.

Post by anatoly techtonik
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Amber "Hawkie" Brown

Post by Hynek Schlawack

Post by Moshe Zadka
I am sure everyone understands that the Twisted community would love

more diversity. While it is hard to achieve, it should be easy to remove
one of the obvious blockers -- making underrepresented groups feel more
welcome.

Post by Hynek Schlawack

Post by Glyph
Thanks for taking this on, Moshe.

Post by Moshe Zadka
My current draft, including instructions on how to build it, is in

https://github.com/moshez/twisted-coc . I have intentionally not made the
built documents available, in an attempt to avoid someone picking them up
before they're approved by us.

Post by Hynek Schlawack

Post by Glyph
Why isn't this repository either (A) just a simple text file saying

"we have adopted the Django CoC" or (B) a very small fork of something
else? One of the concerns is licensing; if the text comes via Django,
Django credits the "Speak Up!" project, which is CC-BY, apparently from
this repository: <https://github.com/jnoller/talk-mentorship>. Another
is... is Twisted really distinct enough to need its own CoC? Just
s/Django/Twisted might be good enough? (Since this is not a fork, figuring
out if anything else has changed is rather tedious, even after having read
both ;)).

Post by Hynek Schlawack
I wonder whether it might make sense to just say we adopt

https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ ?

Post by Hynek Schlawack
What I would really love is if we could have our own diversity

statement like Django has: https://www.djangoproject.com/diversity/

Post by Amber "Hawkie" Brown
The Django one is more explicit -- it's rather sad that it needs to be,

but it does lay out more directly the unacceptable behaviours.

Post by Amber "Hawkie" Brown
That being said, it's not an unchangeable document -- if it doesn't suit

the community's needs, we can modify it to suit.
So that CoCs are just a set of rules to ban users expressed in a vague
legal form, so that people can not complain, because they don't
understand. Is that right? =)
--
anatoly t.
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Kevin Turner

2015-06-24 20:25:02 UTC

I'm generally +1 on the idea of having a CoC.

I'm content to delegate the details to subcommittee, so maybe I should

Post by Moshe Zadka
4. A CoC has several purposes, and "banning people" is actually pretty
far down the list. [âŠ]

Agreed. Clayton said "They rarely get read until there's a problem," but
I think prevention and expectation-setting are things to aim for here.
If people only find out about what's acceptable conduct *after* there's
a problem, that's too late.

and as an aside,

Post by Moshe Zadka
I think it's a problem that we don't have the names of the people on
the PLC on our wiki, but this is a separate issue. [It should be
rectified, as well as clarifying the rules for how the PLC
acquires/retires members.

Agreed. (I am one of the current PLC members.)

Moshe Zadka

2015-06-29 02:07:02 UTC

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry I haven't responded to the e-mails -- I have had a busy weekend,
and my stack was a bit deep for personal projects. I will try to get caught
up and see what the right next step is on Monday.

Thanks for your understanding,
Moshe Z.

Post by Kevin Turner
I'm generally +1 on the idea of having a CoC.
I'm content to delegate the details to subcommittee, so maybe I should
4. A CoC has several purposes, and "banning people" is actually pretty far
down the list. [âŠ]
Agreed. Clayton said "They rarely get read until there's a problem," but I
think prevention and expectation-setting are things to aim for here. If
people only find out about what's acceptable conduct *after* there's a
problem, that's too late.
and as an aside,
I think it's a problem that we don't have the names of the people on the
PLC on our wiki, but this is a separate issue. [It should be rectified, as
well as clarifying the rules for how the PLC acquires/retires members.
Agreed. (I am one of the current PLC members.)
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Kevin Turner

2015-07-20 05:28:29 UTC

I was chatting with some people at the Community Leadership Summit today
about the Recurse Center's social rules[1], which reminded me of this
thread. What's the status of this proposal?

Links:

1. https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment

David Reid

2015-08-12 19:08:17 UTC

What needs to happen to move this proposal forward?

-David

Post by Kevin Turner
I was chatting with some people at the Community Leadership Summit today
about the Recurse Center's social rules
<https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment>, which reminded me of
this thread. What's the status of this proposal?
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

John Santos

2015-06-23 15:39:58 UTC

Hi everyone,

I am sure everyone understands that the Twisted community would love more
diversity. While it is hard to achieve, it should be easy to remove one of
the obvious blockers -- making underrepresented groups feel more welcome.

I think, and hope, that our IRC channel, our issue system and mailing list
have been a friendly, pleasant place. This is an attempt to clarify what we
mean by a "friendly, pleasant place".

After some discussion on IRC, I volunteered to write up a Code of Conduct
for Twisted. It is mostly an adaptation of Django's CoC -- I think Django
has a nice track record of commitment to diversity, and, of course, we
expect our communities to overlap.

My current draft, including instructions on how to build it, is in
https://github.com/moshez/twisted-coc . I have intentionally not made the
built documents available, in an attempt to avoid someone picking them up
before they're approved by us.

Please respond if there are any concerns about the wording, anything that I
missed and anything you think does not belong there. I hope we can achieve
consensus, and have the Project Leadership Committee approve this
(including approving the current committee -- I've volunteered to chair it,
and Glyph and Amber (HawkOwl) have graciously agreed to be on it.)

Thanks,
Moshe Z.

I've noticed several typos in the Reporting Guidelines section
(reporting.rst)

I hope this is the appropriate place to report them.

* first sentence of the 4th paragraph of the "What Happens..." section.
The last word is "response", should be "respond"

* Last sentence of the same paragraph: "Finally, the Working Group will
make a report on the situation to the DSF board. The board may choose to
a public report of the incident." Should be TSF board, not DSF board, and
needs a verb in the final clause, probably "make".

Also, more substantively, the first possible response is "Nothing (if we
determine no violation occurred)." Maybe I'm just too literal, but I
think there should be a positive response to every report, even if that
response is "We've decided not to do anything", so the reporter knows the
report has been seen and thought about and hasn't just fallen through the
cracks.

Another note, someone earlier implied that since Twisted doesn't sponsor
events, the event-related parts of the Django CoC were irrelevant. In
the past, there have been several local bug-fixing sprints, one of which
I almost actually attended. I would think these would qualify as events
and the issues for a CoC when people meet in person may be somewhat
different from when we meet online.

Otherwise, I strongly support this and am happy the Twisted Project is
taking a proactive stance on it. Great work, everyone, and thank you
Moshe, Glyph and Amber!

--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

Clayton Daley

2015-06-23 18:01:17 UTC

Not that I'm a heavy contributor, but:

- A CoC is like a ToS in many ways. They rarely get read until there's
a problem.
- A CoC is like a License in many ways. They should be pretty standard
infrastructure.

I think both of these facts argue for joining Twisted to an existing CoC.
No one goes around reading the CoC for every group they participate in. We
increase the odds that someone reads our CoC if they get leverage (one
read, lots of groups) and we get spill-over (they read the CoC for another
group and thus know ours).

If an extremely common library (think JSON handler) lacks a feature, we
don't start by creating yet another fork. We make the case to fix
upstream. We only consider forking if we can't get upstream fixed. A CoC is
no different. In fact, a CoC is likely even more generic than a JSON
library -- I have to wonder what's so special about a CoC that we'd need a
fork! If we use the upstream CoC, we also benefit from improvements
contributed by others.

Clayton

Post by Moshe Zadka
Hi everyone,
I am sure everyone understands that the Twisted community would love more
diversity. While it is hard to achieve, it should be easy to remove one of
the obvious blockers -- making underrepresented groups feel more welcome.
I think, and hope, that our IRC channel, our issue system and mailing list
have been a friendly, pleasant place. This is an attempt to clarify what we
mean by a "friendly, pleasant place".
After some discussion on IRC, I volunteered to write up a Code of Conduct
for Twisted. It is mostly an adaptation of Django's CoC -- I think Django
has a nice track record of commitment to diversity, and, of course, we
expect our communities to overlap.
My current draft, including instructions on how to build it, is in
https://github.com/moshez/twisted-coc . I have intentionally not made the
built documents available, in an attempt to avoid someone picking them up
before they're approved by us.
Please respond if there are any concerns about the wording, anything that I
missed and anything you think does not belong there. I hope we can achieve
consensus, and have the Project Leadership Committee approve this
(including approving the current committee -- I've volunteered to chair it,
and Glyph and Amber (HawkOwl) have graciously agreed to be on it.)
Thanks,
Moshe Z.
I've noticed several typos in the Reporting Guidelines section
(reporting.rst)
I hope this is the appropriate place to report them.
* first sentence of the 4th paragraph of the "What Happens..." section.
The last word is "response", should be "respond"
* Last sentence of the same paragraph: "Finally, the Working Group will
make a report on the situation to the DSF board. The board may choose to
a public report of the incident." Should be TSF board, not DSF board, and
needs a verb in the final clause, probably "make".
Also, more substantively, the first possible response is "Nothing (if we
determine no violation occurred)." Maybe I'm just too literal, but I
think there should be a positive response to every report, even if that
response is "We've decided not to do anything", so the reporter knows the
report has been seen and thought about and hasn't just fallen through the
cracks.
Another note, someone earlier implied that since Twisted doesn't sponsor
events, the event-related parts of the Django CoC were irrelevant. In
the past, there have been several local bug-fixing sprints, one of which
I almost actually attended. I would think these would qualify as events
and the issues for a CoC when people meet in person may be somewhat
different from when we meet online.
Otherwise, I strongly support this and am happy the Twisted Project is
taking a proactive stance on it. Great work, everyone, and thank you
Moshe, Glyph and Amber!
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Stephen Thorne

2015-06-23 18:47:42 UTC

I agree with Clayton's points. Please pick a code of conduct that others
have used. Avoid the desire to specialize.

I like the PSF code of conduct, http://bit.ly/psf-coc but any well regarded
CoC will do.

Stephen.

Post by Clayton Daley
- A CoC is like a ToS in many ways. They rarely get read until
there's a problem.
- A CoC is like a License in many ways. They should be pretty
standard infrastructure.
I think both of these facts argue for joining Twisted to an existing CoC.
No one goes around reading the CoC for every group they participate in. We
increase the odds that someone reads our CoC if they get leverage (one
read, lots of groups) and we get spill-over (they read the CoC for another
group and thus know ours).
If an extremely common library (think JSON handler) lacks a feature, we
don't start by creating yet another fork. We make the case to fix
upstream. We only consider forking if we can't get upstream fixed. A CoC is
no different. In fact, a CoC is likely even more generic than a JSON
library -- I have to wonder what's so special about a CoC that we'd need a
fork! If we use the upstream CoC, we also benefit from improvements
contributed by others.
Clayton

_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Jason J. W. Williams

2015-06-23 18:51:45 UTC

Post by Stephen Thorne
http://bit.ly/psf-coc

I like the PSF code of conduct. It's readable, and covers the bases
with an emphasis on civility and respect.

-J

David Reid

2015-06-23 18:59:04 UTC

I'm going to come out strongly against using the PSF CoC. It is woefully
inadequate, it includes no mechanisms for reporting, and as any PSF member
who has been on certain mailing lists knows it is actually completely
unenforceable.

-David

Post by Stephen Thorne
I agree with Clayton's points. Please pick a code of conduct that others
have used. Avoid the desire to specialize.
I like the PSF code of conduct, http://bit.ly/psf-coc but any well
regarded CoC will do.
Stephen.

_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Jason J. W. Williams

2015-06-23 19:31:23 UTC

Post by David Reid
I'm going to come out strongly against using the PSF CoC. It is woefully
inadequate, it includes no mechanisms for reporting, and as any PSF member
who has been on certain mailing lists knows it is actually completely
unenforceable.

Enforcing CoCs is hard, and to that end I don't think adding a section
to the PSF CoC indicating who will act as arbiter for enforcement and
what the stages of remediation available to the arbiters are.

-J

Steve Waterbury

2015-06-23 19:51:12 UTC

With all due respect ;), that is not a well-formed sentence ...
this part of it:

"adding a section
to the PSF CoC indicating who will act as arbiter for enforcement and
what the stages of remediation available to the arbiters are"

is a noun phrase. So you said "I don't think [noun phrase]."
I suspect you want to say "I don't think [noun phrase] would be
difficult." ... or something like that.

Steve

Jason J. W. Williams

2015-06-23 20:00:35 UTC

Apologies...editing while on a call.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Steve Waterbury

With all due respect ;), that is not a well-formed sentence ...
"adding a section
to the PSF CoC indicating who will act as arbiter for enforcement and
what the stages of remediation available to the arbiters are"
is a noun phrase. So you said "I don't think [noun phrase]."
I suspect you want to say "I don't think [noun phrase] would be
difficult." ... or something like that.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

David Reid

2015-06-23 20:49:20 UTC

While it should not in theory be difficult to update the PSF CoC, in
practice I expect it would be quite difficult for the simple reason that:

"This document was approved by the membership of the Python Software
Foundation during the vote which concluded on 19 April 2013."

Implying that any updates to the CoC would also need to be approved by a
vote of the membership.

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'm a +1 on adopting the Django CoC.

-David

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Jason J. W. Williams <

Post by Jason J. W. Williams
Apologies...editing while on a call.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Steve Waterbury

Post by David Reid
I'm going to come out strongly against using the PSF CoC. It is

woefully

Post by David Reid
inadequate, it includes no mechanisms for reporting, and as any PSF member
who has been on certain mailing lists knows it is actually completely
unenforceable.

_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Clayton Daley

2015-06-23 21:52:11 UTC

I'm not picky which CoC we use, but the fact that upstream requires
approval shouldn't disqualify PSF. Part of my argument is that our
contributions benefit a larger community. If PSF needs an enforcement
clause, they might be more than willing to adopt the change -- and a bigger
community would certainly benefit.

The goal should be to participate in and contribute to something broad.
PSF woudl be great. A little Googling identified some other referenced
CoCs (Twitter, Ubuntu, GDC, OSI, Gnome, Mozilla) -- see
https://openhatch.org/wiki/Project_codes_of_conduct for these and more
examples -- as well as the "Contributor Covenant" that claims ~30 projects
as participants and accepts PRs:

http://contributor-covenant.org/

It seems likely that at least one of these options provides both a good
starting point and an acceptable governance policy.

Clayton

Post by David Reid
While it should not in theory be difficult to update the PSF CoC, in
"This document was approved by the membership of the Python Software
Foundation during the vote which concluded on 19 April 2013."
Implying that any updates to the CoC would also need to be approved by a
vote of the membership.
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'm a +1 on adopting the Django CoC.
-David
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Jason J. W. Williams <

Post by Jason J. W. Williams
Apologies...editing while on a call.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Steve Waterbury

Post by David Reid
I'm going to come out strongly against using the PSF CoC. It is

woefully

Post by David Reid
inadequate, it includes no mechanisms for reporting, and as any PSF member
who has been on certain mailing lists knows it is actually completely
unenforceable.

_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Glyph

2015-06-24 02:12:28 UTC

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 adoptionâŠ

unless you meant you thought it should block adoption of the PSF CoC?

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 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

David Reid

2015-06-24 04:01:20 UTC

I definitely meant "I don't think that should block adoption".

-David

Post by David Reid
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 adoptionâŠ
unless you meant you thought it should block adoption of the PSF CoC?
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 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
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Amber "Hawkie" Brown

2015-06-24 04:06:24 UTC

Why isn't this a fork of an existing CoC?

As a member of the Django CoC committee, I will pass this suggestion on.

- Amber

Amber "Hawkie" Brown

2015-06-24 06:02:08 UTC

Russ has informed me that it's accessible on https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/master/djangoproject/templates/conduct/index.html -- so we could potentially fork the repo and make it just that file or so :)

Amber "Hawkie" Brown
GPG: https://keybase.io/hawkowl

Why isn't this a fork of an existing CoC?

As a member of the Django CoC committee, I will pass this suggestion on.
- Amber
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Glyph

2015-06-24 06:05:59 UTC