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.
