I think it's important to point out that a "Code of Conduct" is merely one document, of limited scope and purpose.
In particular it does not touch matters of *governance* of a project. Open source projects with very different governance structures can share the same Code of Conduct. Questions such as "who can / should set status labels", "who can / should edit others' Issue/PR descriptions", etc. are primarily questions of governance, namely of *roles* in a project (and the associated duties and privileges of people in the role). This is a discussion that the project also needs to have quite urgently, but I suggest to get to this after the vote on the Code of Conduct and the appointment of the new CoC committee. Matthias On Friday, March 1, 2024 at 2:49:37 AM UTC-8 Martin R wrote: > I would like to ask whether we might want to add some of the following to > the code of conduct, I could not find it covered there. > > I admit that it is unclear to me whether the discussion should be on pull > requests only. I don't want to add the following to John's pull request, > because it definitely doesn't belong there. Opening another one makes > things even harder to follow, so I'm trying to be brave. > > I imagine that the issues below may be cultural things, so I would > perfectly understand that all or some of it is perfectly OK in some > communities, and therefore should not be part of the sage code of conduct. > > I also admit that some of the issues below are attitudes that make it hard > for me to work on sage. There were some situations in which I would > possibly have stopped contributing to sage, if sage wasn't a professional > necessity for me. > > 0. sage is a community effort, and not the project of a single or even a > few persons. Try to not identify yourself with the code in sage. > 1. It is not OK to judge somebody else's attempts to improve sage other > than critisising it technically or casting a negative vote. By contrast, > emphasising the positive aspects and appreciating the effort is welcome. > 2. It is not OK to emphasise oneselves contributions or stressing that one > has been right. By contrast, it is fine to express that one is happy or > perhaps even proud to have solved a particular technical problem. > 3. It is not OK to modify the description of a pull request or issue of > somebody else without explicit permission, ideally on the ticket so that > the permission is visible to all readers. > 4. It is not OK to change a pull request to "positive review" if someone > has already expressed explicitly that it shouldn't be merged, and there > hasn't been a vote. > > Comments and variations, but also saying that this should not be discussed > for a particular reason: welcome! > > Best wishes, > > Martin > On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 22:24:29 UTC+1 John H Palmieri wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I am working on some changes to Sage's Code of Conduct, and I am asking >> for comments. Once the draft has stabilized, then we will hold a vote on >> sage-devel to approve (or not) the changes. Please visit >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501 to see the proposal. >> >> The current Code of Conduct was approved by a vote in sage-devel almost >> 10 years ago. My intention is not to alter the core principles in the Code >> of Conduct, but instead to add more details: for example, how should you >> report a possible violation, what are possible consequences if the Sage >> Code of Conduct Committee (what has until now been called the Sage Abuse >> Committee) finds that a violation occurred, how to amend the document, etc. >> The changes are based in large part on similar documents from SciPy and >> NumFOCUS: we are not reinventing the wheel. >> >> As such, I hope that the proposed changes are (a) not controversial, and >> (b) a clear improvement. I could certainly be wrong about either of these, >> but I will make this suggestion: if you agree with me about (a) and (b) and >> you also want to propose changes that are potentially more controversial, >> then I would ask that you make that proposal separately so that the Sage >> community can vote on it separately, and the changes can be merged >> independently of each other. >> >> Please take a look and leave comments on the PR. >> >> -- >> John >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/432caff6-9fc6-4e0c-927f-e64c083bacacn%40googlegroups.com.
