Re: [PATCH] add a Code of Conduct document
On 9/24/19 3:05 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On 24/09/19 10:12AM, Denton Liu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:44:54AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>>> +## Enforcement
>>> +
>>> +Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
>>> +reported by contacting the project team at git@sfconservancy.org. All
>>> +complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response
>>> +that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project
>>> +team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of
>>> +an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
>>> +separately.
>> I feel uncomfortable with this being left so wide open. First of all, I
>> know that the power *probably* won't be abused but I don't think
>> probably is good enough.
I can put it more succinctly:
Has anyone ever heard the pebble dropped in this well hit bottom?
Show 23 quoted lines
>>
>> As I said above, I couldn't find a public list of the people who were on
>> the project committee. Perhaps that's because my Googling skills are bad
>> but I feel uncomfortable knowing that *anyone* will be given judge, jury
>> and executioner power, let alone people whom I don't know anything
>> about.
>
> I agree with this. I would certainly like to know who the people who
> will judge these cases are.
>
> I want to add another question: what will the judgement process be like?
> Will it be an open discussion on this list, or will it be decided behind
> closed doors by the committee, and we just get to hear the results?
>
> While there might be no plans regarding this as of now, I'd _really_
> like an open discussion regarding these issues that arise in the future,
> rather than it being decided behind closed doors with us regular old
> contributors getting no say in it. A closed discussion would be much
> more prone to power abuse, if any.
>
>> I'm okay with leaving it open for now but I think I would be a lot more
>> comfortable if we had the interpretations document to close up the
>> vagueness later.