Attention is currently required from: Alexander Goncharov, Anastasia Klimchuk, Angel Pons, Martin L Roth, Patrick Georgi, Peter Marheine, Stefan Reinauer, Thomas Heijligen.
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/76455?usp=email )
Change subject: doc: Add code of conduct ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS2:
It seems the main misunderstanding comes from "Acknowledge that rules already exist". Maybe some rules exist, but code of conduct does not exist. The project needs one.
Right. If the name is important, we can just rename the existing rules to "code of conduct". Then we have one. And the wikipedia definition of "code of conduct" also matches the old rules. (No, I didn't edit wikipedia to agree with me.)
I see two options:
This patch adds code of conduct copied from coreboot as a starting point. We start discussions/reviews of a Friendliness page with the goal to rename and promote it to code of conduct. Once this is done, the new page replaces this initial version.
This patch adds code of conduct copied from coreboot as a starting point. We start discussions/reviews of a Friendliness page as an independent page, and then once it is done we have two pages: code of conduct and friendliness.
There are few reasons why Friendliness cannot be migrated to the new format straight away, see below. Otherwise I would migrate it already.
- Some parts are out-dated (we don't do code reviews on mailing list anymore)
- Some parts unfinished (todo in the middle)
- Some parts belong to dev guidelines
- Some info better be on the Contacts page
- Missing: clear definition of unacceptable behavior
- Missing: clear statement that this rules are enforced (and how), clear explanation of consequences of 5)
What about option three? 3) Acknowledge that the friendliness document is a code of conduct? Even if you disagree with its scope, enforcement, and level of detail, it is a code of conduct.
I am more than happy to also add these as comments to the friendliness patch, once it is out for review.
The very important property of code of conduct is that one can't violate it. That was missing from Friendliness: it was violated multiple times over the recent years and nothing happened.
How do you know that nothing happened? Speaking as past maintainer, I know that something happened because I had to handle such stuff in the past. However, I do believe in not shaming people in public, so the enforcement actions were not noticed publically.
As a side note: I am really interested to hear the story about "conflicts bigger than the one which caused explosions two months ago"! Seriously, tell me about it, I haven't heard about it!
The involved parties know, and I don't want to shame people in public regardless of how long ago this happened.
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger (Code Review)