Comparing changes

We've never had a formally written Code of Conduct document. Though it has been discussed off and on over the years, for the most part the behavior on the mailing list has been good enough that nobody felt the need to push one forward. However, even if there aren't specific problems now, it's a good idea to have a document: - it puts everybody on the same page with respect to expectations. This might avoid poor behavior, but also makes it easier to handle it if it does happen. - it publicly advertises that good conduct is important to us and will be enforced, which may make some people more comfortable with joining our community - it may be a good time to cement our expectations when things are quiet, since it gives everybody some distance rather than focusing on a current contentious issue This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document used by the Git for Windows project. The text is taken mostly verbatim from: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html I also stole a very nice introductory paragraph from the Git for Windows version of the file. There are a few subtle points, though: - the document refers to "the project maintainers". For the code, we generally only consider there to be one maintainer: Junio C Hamano. But for dealing with community issues, it makes sense to involve more people to spread the responsibility. I've listed the project committee address of [email protected] as the contact point. - the document mentions banning from the community, both in the intro paragraph and in "Our Responsibilities". The exact mechanism here is left vague. I can imagine it might start with social enforcement (not accepting patches, ignoring emails) and could escalate to technical measures if necessary (asking vger admins to block an address). It probably make sense _not_ to get too specific at this point, and deal with specifics as they come up. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <[email protected]> Acked-by: CB Bailey <[email protected]> Acked-by: Christian Couder <[email protected]> Acked-by: Emily Shaffer <[email protected]> Acked-by: Garima Singh <[email protected]> Acked-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> Acked-by: Jonathan Tan <[email protected]> Acked-by: Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <[email protected]> Acked-by: Elijah Newren <[email protected]> Acked-by: Phillip Wood <[email protected]> Acked-by: brian m. carlson <[email protected]> Acked-by: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]> Acked-by: Thomas Gummerer <[email protected]> Acked-by: William Baker <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>

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. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>

Navigation Menu

Comparing changes

Open a pull request

Commits on Oct 10, 2019

This comparison is taking too long to generate.

Uh oh!