Jason, My thinking here is modelled on a typical HR policy. There are minor offences and major offences. Minor ones are met with warnings, and major ones are met with summary dismissal.
If a PMC member unambiguously, and seriously, acts against the best interests of the project, then I think it is fitting to remove that person from the PMC. No warnings, no time-outs. Everything is reversible. If the person reforms, then we may want to invite the back. But I hardly think it's likely. In any case, this whole thing would be decided via voting. So I'm not worried about the rules being applied irresponsibly. The way I imagine it working is that, let's say I spot some behaviour that violates our CoC, I would start a vote on the private@ list with the subject "[VOTE] Formal warning for Ash Smith" and I would highlight the part of the CoC that had been violated. Other members of the PMC would vote in private, lending +1 or -1 votes. If the vote passes, I would issue a formal warning on behalf of the project. Warnings would be done in private, and there would be a chance to appeal (which would be, again, voted on). I think it's a good idea to post a note to the relevant thread indicating that the community member received a warning for the behaviour. Instead of a third warning, we'd issue a time-out. Again decided on by vote. This person would be removed from the mailing list, IRC, or JIRA. Whatever makes sense in context. Perhaps all of them at once. Repeated time-outs would, I guess, just mean that the time-outs get longer each time. You could start with a day, a week, or whatever, and go to a month, three months, six months, and so on. The only thing left to decide is what to do about commit bits and PMC membership. I think if a committer is put on time-out a second or third time, we ought to be thinking about removing that person from the PMC or committership. On 29 April 2014 14:15, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Mike Rhodes <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 29 April 2014 11:18, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Rule: No profanity >> > >> > Secondly, this is only a suspicion, but I think profanity (and also cocky >> > faux hatred), is a shibboleth indicating manhood and that we are in a >> > men-only club. It's like a loud fart or belch, or scratching your groin. >> > Men generally curb that behavior in mixed company. It reminds me of bulls >> > locking horns to impress a mate. Maybe F-bombs and the anger it stands >> for >> > are scaring some women away from software. Could be wrong, though. >> >> +1 to guidance against profanity, particularly casual. Crassness is >> unpleasant. >> >> -1 to casual sexism that women don't swear, fart or scratch their crotches. >> I know you didn't mean harm, but this trap is too easy to fall into and is >> relevant here. >> > > Well anyway I'm glad there's some momentum (if not yet consensus) to this > idea. Thanks. -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
