On 9/26/2019 3:20 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 04:52:56PM -0700, Emily Shaffer wrote: > >>>> I've cc'd g...@sfconservancy.org here, because I think it's important for >>>> all of the project committee members to endorse it (and because the >>>> document puts us on the hook for enforcing it!). >>> >>> I tried looking it up but I couldn't find who the project committee >>> members are. Is this list published anywhere? More on that later... >> >> To be honest, I'm a little worried about it too. What if I have a >> problem with someone on the project committee? What if I have a >> problem with someone I don't know is on the project committee? > > I think those are very good points. See the patch below. > >> I helped my other FOSS project to adopt a Code of Conduct earlier in >> the year (https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md) >> and we got around this by asking for volunteers from the technical >> steering committee to agree to have their contact info listed on the >> escalation path; at the end of the escalation path we also listed >> someone external to the project (which we were able to do because we >> had been adopted by the Linux Foundation, and they have someone for >> that). > > Yeah, I think this is sort of the same thing except that I > pre-volunteered the whole project committee. ;) > > We could have a separate list of contacts for the code of conduct, but > it seems simplest to just use the existing group that we already have, > unless there's a compelling reason not to. > >> A possible con of being on this escalation path is having your name >> and contact info outed to trolls as a supporter of something >> controversial like a code of conduct. However, I'd argue that the >> growing list of ACKs on this thread expose us in a similar way. On the >> other side, the benefit of having a transparent escalation path like >> this is that you can bypass a problematic individual who may be in a >> position of power. It also provides an opportunity for increased >> discretion in delicate situations like the example Peff gave >> downthread. > > Yep, agreed with all of this. > > So here's a patch that I think improves the situation. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] CODE_OF_CONDUCT: mention individual project-leader emails > > It's possible that somebody on the project committee is the subject of a > complaint. In that case, it may be useful to be able to contact the > other members individually, so let's make it clear that's an option. > > This also serves to enumerate the set of people on the committee. That > lets you easily _know_ if you're in the situation mentioned above. And > it's just convenient to list who's involved in the process, since the > project committee list is not anywhere else in the repository.
I think this handles the conflict of interest issues. This is likely never to be needed, but helpful to have. Thanks, -Stolee > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <p...@peff.net> > --- > CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > index b94f72b0b8..fc4645d5c0 100644 > --- a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > @@ -74,6 +74,14 @@ Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code > of Conduct in good > faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other > members of the project's leadership. > > +The project leadership team can be contacted by email as a whole at > +g...@sfconservancy.org, or individually: > + > + - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> > + - Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> > + - Jeff King <p...@peff.net> > + - Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> > + > ## Attribution > > This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage], >
