On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18:53AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > 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> > > All folks that have proven to exhibit good judgement in the past, > and hope they continue to exhibit that in the future.
I snipped your concerns with some of the language. I do agree with you that a lot of is open to interpretation. But I also think it's impossible to get it 100% airtight. My feeling was that it was a good idea to go with some existing, well-established text, even if it has some wiggle room. And then rely on the existing community and especially the people listed above to do that interpretation. So... > Just pointing out some concerns of mine. No ack from me > (but it's not a NACK, either). I'm pretty ambivalent... For me it is obviously an ack, but I wanted to make clear that I think your concerns (and those of others who spoke up, like René and Gábor) are certainly _valid_. I just think that adopting this CoC is, while not perfect, the least-bad option. I'd also say that we might consider living with it for a while (6 months? a year?) and seeing if people have an interest in revising it after that point based on experience. This is the same text used by the kernel, btw. I think somebody mentioned to me (but I think it may have been off-list) that the kernel has an "interpretation" document: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.html which clarifies a few terms with respect to that specific community. I didn't feel that we particularly needed to do that for our community, but if somebody wants to work up a clarifying document, I'd be happy to review it. -Peff
