Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[David Roe]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:44 PM seb@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Personally I don't mind if a maintainer would correct my typos in the PR
> description (or something else according to Volker's white list). However,
> since this is a privileged action and we cannot be sure that everyone feels
> this way, I think this point should be addressed generally. Perhaps the
> Code of Conduct could specify that permissions for cloud services that are
> technically necessary to maintain the project should generally not be used
> for other purposes unless there is agreement from all affected persons.
>

One thing to note is that when you make a pull request on github you have
the option to opt out

of these kinds of changes by maintainers.  I think it's good to add
pointers to this in our documentation about making and reviewing PRs, as
well as clarify what kind of changes are acceptable.  I think I agree
with Matthias'
suggestion
 that
these kinds of guidelines are better put in our reviewing code rather than
the Code of Conduct, since they feel more like details than guiding
principles.
David


> David Roe schrieb am Sonntag, 10. März 2024 um 16:44:06 UTC+1:
>
>> I agree with both Tobias and Matthias that we should have a discussion
>> about the roles of maintainers (since they have defined privileges on
>> github) and changes to Sage's governance model more generally.  Martin and
>> Tobias have commented on trying to include some additional principles into
>> the code of conduct, and I've asked John to include my revised suggestion
>> into the PR .  This doesn't
>> currently address all of Martin's points, so if anyone has other concrete
>> changes to suggest feel free to do it here or on the PR.
>>
>> In the interest of moving forward, I'm planning on giving the PR positive
>> review on Thursday.  Of course, additional changes are always possible
>> through a discussion here if we find that there are more that we want to
>> add.
>> David
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:45 PM Matthias Koeppe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[seb....@gmail.com]

Personally I don't mind if a maintainer would correct my typos in the PR 
description (or something else according to Volker's white list). However, 
since this is a privileged action and we cannot be sure that everyone feels 
this way, I think this point should be addressed generally. Perhaps the 
Code of Conduct could specify that permissions for cloud services that are 
technically necessary to maintain the project should generally not be used 
for other purposes unless there is agreement from all affected persons.

David Roe schrieb am Sonntag, 10. März 2024 um 16:44:06 UTC+1:

> I agree with both Tobias and Matthias that we should have a discussion 
> about the roles of maintainers (since they have defined privileges on 
> github) and changes to Sage's governance model more generally.  Martin and 
> Tobias have commented on trying to include some additional principles into 
> the code of conduct, and I've asked John to include my revised suggestion 
> into the PR .  This doesn't 
> currently address all of Martin's points, so if anyone has other concrete 
> changes to suggest feel free to do it here or on the PR.
>
> In the interest of moving forward, I'm planning on giving the PR positive 
> review on Thursday.  Of course, additional changes are always possible 
> through a discussion here if we find that there are more that we want to 
> add.
> David
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:45 PM Matthias Koeppe  
> wrote:
>
>> 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 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[David Roe]

I agree with both Tobias and Matthias that we should have a discussion
about the roles of maintainers (since they have defined privileges on
github) and changes to Sage's governance model more generally.  Martin and
Tobias have commented on trying to include some additional principles into
the code of conduct, and I've asked John to include my revised suggestion
into the PR .  This doesn't
currently address all of Martin's points, so if anyone has other concrete
changes to suggest feel free to do it here or on the PR.

In the interest of moving forward, I'm planning on giving the PR positive
review on Thursday.  Of course, additional changes are always possible
through a discussion here if we find that there are more that we want to
add.
David

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:45 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> 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 

[sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[Matthias Koeppe]

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.

[sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[Volker Braun]

Thanks for working on this, John!

I like that they are aspirational goals, being nice to each other shouldn't 
be that hard.

There are always going to be questions "what exactly is now allowed", but 
its impossible to enumerate everything. Is it OK to push to somebody else's 
branch, or change the issue description? Maybe. Surely fixing a typo is OK. 
But hijacking somebody else's issue to do something that wasn't intended by 
the author is not OK. Unless you talked about it first, and agreed on it. 
Then its OK again. Maybe you though the change was welcome, but it turns 
out it wasn't. Just be nice and reset the branch to the previous state, no 
harm done.





On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 10:24:29 PM 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/c4d11498-88c5-4306-8216-e7776c3eff30n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

['tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel]

I think Martin raises important points and agree that 0-4 should be added 
to the code of conduct (more in spirit than in this particular formulation; 
for example, I like the proposed reformulations of David). Point 5 is 
important as well, but I would say it's enough to spell out the rules 
governing labels in more detail in the developer documentation.

As a response to David's questions above (if I may share my perspective):

   - "As for the second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of 
   conduct, since it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if 
   your code is removed from Sage), rather than behavior." - Problems arise if 
   the identification with code is no longer only an internal view but does 
   lead to observable behavior (eg blocking the removal of certain parts of 
   the codebase).
   - Since only admins/maintainers can actually edit PRs/issues (or push to 
   PRs), this creates an imbalance of power and thus it should be clearly 
   defined what actions are okay or which are not. Perhaps it's a good idea to 
   even add a new section about the special rules applying to maintainer 
   actions (in addition to edits, closing of issues and PRs would be a topic).
   

On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 2:17:59 AM UTC+8 John H Palmieri wrote:

> There are suggestions along maybe similar lines at 
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36844, and I am trying to think of 
> how we might incorporate your suggestions and the other ones. I've had the 
> thought before about other documents (like our department's by-laws) that 
> there should be two separate documents: the main one and then, separately, 
> commentary (like the Talmud). These suggestions currently feel more like 
> commentary to me, but one option would be to add a "commentary" section to 
> the code of conduct.
>
> -- 
> John
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2024 at 9:41:31 AM UTC-8 Martin R wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the thoughtful reply!  You gave me a lot to think about, 
>> and I'll do so over the weekend, rather than rushing.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martin
>> On Friday 1 March 2024 at 18:21:59 UTC+1 David Roe wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for starting the conversation Martin.  I certainly think that 
>>> all of these suggestions are appropriate to discuss, and that sage-devel is 
>>> probably a better venue for discussion like this than the PR.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:49 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
>>> sage-...@googlegroups.com> 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.

>>>
>>> I'm sorry to hear that there were situations like this.  If you think it 
>>> would be helpful to describe them in more detail privately (even if you're 
>>> not seeking any kind of action), feel free to write to the Code of Conduct 
>>> committee.
>>>  
>>> Here are my thoughts on your suggestions.  I think that some of them 
>>> should definitely be included, though it's not completely clear to me where 
>>> (it feels awkward to add yet another enumerated list).
>>>  
>>>
 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.

>>>  
>>> The community aspect of Sage is currently discussed in the introduction, 
>>> and perhaps we can tweak that to incorporate this suggestion.  As for the 
>>> second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of conduct, since 
>>> it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if your code is 
>>> removed from Sage), rather than behavior.
>>>
>>> Currently our introduction is "The Sage community is comprised of an 
>>> international mixture of mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, 
>>> researchers, teachers, amateurs, and others with varied backgrounds. This 
>>> diversity is one of our strengths, but it can also lead to communication 
>>> problems and unhappiness. People who love working on Sage can more 
>>> effectively collaborate with others if they follow this code."  What do you 
>>> feel is missing from this that you're trying to include?
>>>  
>>>
 1. It is not OK to judge 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[John H Palmieri]

There are suggestions along maybe similar lines at 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36844, and I am trying to think of 
how we might incorporate your suggestions and the other ones. I've had the 
thought before about other documents (like our department's by-laws) that 
there should be two separate documents: the main one and then, separately, 
commentary (like the Talmud). These suggestions currently feel more like 
commentary to me, but one option would be to add a "commentary" section to 
the code of conduct.

-- 
John

On Friday, March 1, 2024 at 9:41:31 AM UTC-8 Martin R wrote:

> Thank you for the thoughtful reply!  You gave me a lot to think about, and 
> I'll do so over the weekend, rather than rushing.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
> On Friday 1 March 2024 at 18:21:59 UTC+1 David Roe wrote:
>
>> Thank you for starting the conversation Martin.  I certainly think that 
>> all of these suggestions are appropriate to discuss, and that sage-devel is 
>> probably a better venue for discussion like this than the PR.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:49 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
>> sage-...@googlegroups.com> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that there were situations like this.  If you think it 
>> would be helpful to describe them in more detail privately (even if you're 
>> not seeking any kind of action), feel free to write to the Code of Conduct 
>> committee.
>>  
>> Here are my thoughts on your suggestions.  I think that some of them 
>> should definitely be included, though it's not completely clear to me where 
>> (it feels awkward to add yet another enumerated list).
>>  
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>  
>> The community aspect of Sage is currently discussed in the introduction, 
>> and perhaps we can tweak that to incorporate this suggestion.  As for the 
>> second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of conduct, since 
>> it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if your code is 
>> removed from Sage), rather than behavior.
>>
>> Currently our introduction is "The Sage community is comprised of an 
>> international mixture of mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, 
>> researchers, teachers, amateurs, and others with varied backgrounds. This 
>> diversity is one of our strengths, but it can also lead to communication 
>> problems and unhappiness. People who love working on Sage can more 
>> effectively collaborate with others if they follow this code."  What do you 
>> feel is missing from this that you're trying to include?
>>  
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I like the idea of including more about positivity, and this fits in with 
>> Guideline 2: "Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and 
>> supports people of all backgrounds and identities."  Maybe we can append a 
>> sentence here like "When discussing contributions, endeavor to encourage 
>> positive aspects and avoid overly harsh criticism."
>>
>> I do think there are cultural differences here, and personally I think 
>> restricting negative feedback to just voting and "technical" criticism goes 
>> too far, partly because I don't think technical is very clearly defined.  
>> There are judgement calls to be made about what should be included into 
>> Sage, which are not always a matter of what method is technically 
>> superior.  I don't think we want to restrict developer's ability to offer 
>> negative feedback, but instead to encourage people to be positive and 
>> welcoming.  I'd like to hear other perspectives on this.
>>  
>>
>>> 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 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

['Martin R' via sage-devel]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply!  You gave me a lot to think about, and 
I'll do so over the weekend, rather than rushing.

Best,

Martin
On Friday 1 March 2024 at 18:21:59 UTC+1 David Roe wrote:

> Thank you for starting the conversation Martin.  I certainly think that 
> all of these suggestions are appropriate to discuss, and that sage-devel is 
> probably a better venue for discussion like this than the PR.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:49 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
> sage-...@googlegroups.com> 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.
>>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that there were situations like this.  If you think it 
> would be helpful to describe them in more detail privately (even if you're 
> not seeking any kind of action), feel free to write to the Code of Conduct 
> committee.
>  
> Here are my thoughts on your suggestions.  I think that some of them 
> should definitely be included, though it's not completely clear to me where 
> (it feels awkward to add yet another enumerated list).
>  
>
>> 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.
>>
>  
> The community aspect of Sage is currently discussed in the introduction, 
> and perhaps we can tweak that to incorporate this suggestion.  As for the 
> second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of conduct, since 
> it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if your code is 
> removed from Sage), rather than behavior.
>
> Currently our introduction is "The Sage community is comprised of an 
> international mixture of mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, 
> researchers, teachers, amateurs, and others with varied backgrounds. This 
> diversity is one of our strengths, but it can also lead to communication 
> problems and unhappiness. People who love working on Sage can more 
> effectively collaborate with others if they follow this code."  What do you 
> feel is missing from this that you're trying to include?
>  
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I like the idea of including more about positivity, and this fits in with 
> Guideline 2: "Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and 
> supports people of all backgrounds and identities."  Maybe we can append a 
> sentence here like "When discussing contributions, endeavor to encourage 
> positive aspects and avoid overly harsh criticism."
>
> I do think there are cultural differences here, and personally I think 
> restricting negative feedback to just voting and "technical" criticism goes 
> too far, partly because I don't think technical is very clearly defined.  
> There are judgement calls to be made about what should be included into 
> Sage, which are not always a matter of what method is technically 
> superior.  I don't think we want to restrict developer's ability to offer 
> negative feedback, but instead to encourage people to be positive and 
> welcoming.  I'd like to hear other perspectives on this.
>  
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm struggling to translate this idea into something concrete that I feel 
> comfortable adding to the code of conduct.  I think it's important to allow 
> people to get credit for the contributions that they've made to Sage, so I 
> don't know what part of emphasizing your own contributions is problematic.  
> Similarly, I think it's too much to ask people to not claim that they are 
> on the correct side of an argument if a discussion gets contentious.  Is 
> there some other aspect of this kind of behavior that we might focus on?
>  
>
>> 3. It is not OK to modify the description of a pull request or issue of 
>> somebody else without explicit 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[David Roe]

Thank you for starting the conversation Martin.  I certainly think that all
of these suggestions are appropriate to discuss, and that sage-devel is
probably a better venue for discussion like this than the PR.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:49 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
sage-devel@googlegroups.com> 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.
>

I'm sorry to hear that there were situations like this.  If you think it
would be helpful to describe them in more detail privately (even if you're
not seeking any kind of action), feel free to write to the Code of Conduct
committee.

Here are my thoughts on your suggestions.  I think that some of them should
definitely be included, though it's not completely clear to me where (it
feels awkward to add yet another enumerated list).


> 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.
>

The community aspect of Sage is currently discussed in the introduction,
and perhaps we can tweak that to incorporate this suggestion.  As for the
second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of conduct, since
it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if your code is
removed from Sage), rather than behavior.

Currently our introduction is "The Sage community is comprised of an
international mixture of mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers,
researchers, teachers, amateurs, and others with varied backgrounds. This
diversity is one of our strengths, but it can also lead to communication
problems and unhappiness. People who love working on Sage can more
effectively collaborate with others if they follow this code."  What do you
feel is missing from this that you're trying to include?


> 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.
>

I like the idea of including more about positivity, and this fits in with
Guideline 2: "Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and
supports people of all backgrounds and identities."  Maybe we can append a
sentence here like "When discussing contributions, endeavor to encourage
positive aspects and avoid overly harsh criticism."

I do think there are cultural differences here, and personally I think
restricting negative feedback to just voting and "technical" criticism goes
too far, partly because I don't think technical is very clearly defined.
There are judgement calls to be made about what should be included into
Sage, which are not always a matter of what method is technically
superior.  I don't think we want to restrict developer's ability to offer
negative feedback, but instead to encourage people to be positive and
welcoming.  I'd like to hear other perspectives on this.


> 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.
>

I'm struggling to translate this idea into something concrete that I feel
comfortable adding to the code of conduct.  I think it's important to allow
people to get credit for the contributions that they've made to Sage, so I
don't know what part of emphasizing your own contributions is problematic.
Similarly, I think it's too much to ask people to not claim that they are
on the correct side of an argument if a discussion gets contentious.  Is
there some other aspect of this kind of behavior that we might focus on?


> 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.
>

I actually think that modifying someone else's pull request to clarify it,
fix typos, or adjust it once the scope has changed is fine.  I'm curious
what other people think, and what our community standard should be.
Martin, what aspects of this bother you?  Are there any kinds of
modifications that you think are 

[sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

['Martin R' via sage-devel]

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/76cb78c4-c01d-4695-8630-95f6a6a809e7n%40googlegroups.com.