TL;DR = Is immediate removal from the project really worth thinking about? Noah, can you think of an example infraction that could plausibly trigger an immediate removal from the project, for a first offense? Yes we can all think of hypothetical examples, but something plausible from this community?
(Am I diving into too much specifics too soon?) I feel like a time-out (of many months or a year) is a pretty harsh consequence. I can't think of something (within expectation or project experience) that would merit much worse. Multiple offenses, or ignoring a time-out, sure: basically to me the only "major infraction" is "repeated or multiple willful normal infractions" if you get my meaning. Imagine a good person who is usually fine but happens to have a very very, very, bad day. And they cross the line badly on that one day. I shouldn't think they'd be removed for a first offense even if it is grave. Again, I am talking about expected or historical real-world behavior, not something hypothetical like, say, something criminal. The most egregious behavior I can think of (that we should spend time planning for) is severe intentional, hurtful, harassment or insult for no productive purpose. Even that, as a first offense from someone otherwise in good standing, I do not think merits expulsion. Suspension, but not expulsion. On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > A requirement for me for our CoC is that we have a well defined > response procedure. This is a commonly done for conferences, but is > usually kept private to conference organisers. Obviously, ours will be > public. > > To give you an idea of what I'm thinking: > > - Minor infractions vs. major infractions > - A warning system for minor infractions (as is common in most > employment situations) > - "Time outs" to let people cool off from IRC, the mailing list, etc > - An escalation procedure in case warnings and cool-offs are ignored > or ineffectual > - Immediate removal from the project in the case of major infractions > > I know this all seems like depressing serious business. But > documenting this stuff so that everyone is on the same page, and we've > all pre-agreed to it will massively cut down on drama while allowing > the project to take swift action when needed. > > On 28 April 2014 21:48, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Benoit said: > >> This one looks really good. What's your plan about the social contract? > >> Take something adapted? > > > > In the context of this CoC it only refers to: > > > > "We will not hide problems > > > > We will keep our entire bug report database open for public > > view at all times. Reports that people file online will > > promptly become visible to others." > > > > so we can probably make this explicit, then point to the ASF Bylaws[1] > > and ASF "How it works"[2] for the rest. > > > > -Joan > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html > > [2] https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater >
