The Carbon Project relied on the three leads to handle conduct concerns initially as it bootstrapped its community team and expertise. We now have an active and effective community lead and team of moderators. Our community lead has worked to train and ramp up a new and independent conduct team.
This proposal both provides an overview of the process and hands off conduct handling to the new team! Going forward, we expect routine updates to the conduct team to happen without full proposals as they allow trained folks to rotate in and out of this difficult but essential role on the project.
Last but not least, making these changes uncovered a restriction in the Code of
Conduct itself that we expect to be problematic to adhere to going forward.
While well intentioned, it has a bunch of unanticipated effects that made both
current and new conduct teams want to remove it. A related section has had its
wording strengthened to try and address the underlying motivation at least
partially.
Most of this content comes from @CelineausBerlin with some additions and edits from myself and the other leads as we worked toward building the new CoC team.
Co-authored-by: Céline Dedaj <CelineausBerlin@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Kate Gregory <kate@Gregcons.com>
We shouldn't allow insults even when they're directed against people who aren't "participants", or when they're directed against ideas (because that indirectly attacks the people holding those ideas).
One is a really basic version of the weapons policy used by many
conferences and events in the tech space.
The other is trying to expand on a sentence to make the nature of how we
will handle these difficult cases.
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Some discomfort is required for us to grow as people as well as a community. Requesting to not make people feel "discomfort" may be weaponized against people seeking help from the CoC team.
So, I deleted "uncomfortable and" from "uncomfortable and threatened". Not making people "threatened" suffices.
Please see this document for more background information: [CLP CoC review July 2022](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XzHMymzn3hxdlnaI44iukT24fy1MdwTXdebhzT45bCI/edit?usp=sharing)
Co-authored-by: jonmeow <jperkins@google.com>
Asking people to “assume good intent” may be weaponized against people seeking help from the CoC team.
So, I replaced instances in which we mentioned we'd expect "positivity" with the more accurate and less risky "constructivity".
Please see this document for more background information: CLP CoC review July 2022
Co-authored-by: jonmeow <jperkins@google.com>
Asking people to be “positive” is preventing us from creating psychological safety in our community. It may be weaponized against people seeking help from the CoC team.
So, I replaced instances in which we mentioned we'd expect "positivity" with the more accurate and less risky "constructivity".
Please see this document for more background information: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XzHMymzn3hxdlnaI44iukT24fy1MdwTXdebhzT45bCI/edit?usp=sharing
Co-authored-by: jonmeow <jperkins@google.com>
Asking people to be “respectful” can be considered “tone policing” and may be weaponized against people seeking help from the CoC team.
So, I replaced instances in which we stated that we'd expect "respect" with the more encompassing and less risky "kindness".
Please see this document for more background information: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XzHMymzn3hxdlnaI44iukT24fy1MdwTXdebhzT45bCI/edit?usp=sharing
Co-authored-by: jonmeow <jperkins@google.com>
Replaced "Posting, or threatening to post, other people’s personally identifying information ("doxing") without their explicit permission."
by "Posting, or threatening to post, other people’s personally identifying information without their explicit permission ("doxing")."
- Replace obsolete references to the arbiters, and clarify that the appeals process will be available once the leads are separate from the conduct team.
- Document that leads, like conduct team members, will be excluded from discussions/decisions that concern them.
- Generally replace Discourse mentions with GitHub Discussions, per #444
- Switch from "Discord Chat" to just "Discord" because there's no more ambiguity, and "Discord" is the more common term.
- Fix mentions of "core team" to "Carbon leads" (because the touched docs overlap a lot).
Co-authored-by: Matthew Riley <mdriley@gmail.com>
We're running into issues with md handlers that expect this kind of 4-space indent. It should be cross-compatible with GH, so switch, even though it feels a little churny.
Manual edits are to:
- .prettierrc.yaml:
- rename from .prettierrc
- add tabWidth (primary change)
- add trailingComma (fix vimPrettier skew)
- contribution_tools.md: Fix remarks about .prettierrc.yaml
- pre-commit-toc.js: indent, bullets
- pre-commit-proposal-list.py: indent of output
The rest is the result of `pre-commit run --all-files`
Unfortunately this'll probably depend on the change being propagated into PR branches, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see regressions for a bit. We'll also need to nudge people to update .vimrc's. Hopefully the pre-commit GH action helps catch issues.
The original header was exactly 80-columns which made every file format
with a line-start comment syntax reflow the text. Instead, pick
a canonical re-flowing that keeps it to just three lines. This also lets
the text refer to the project which seems more clear.
No practical or semantic change here, just getting consistent wording
and line breaks for regularity.
CONTRIBUTING.md replaces the mention of Google style guide (which isn't automated) with Prettier (which should do most of the hauling). The rest is the formatter.
Céline Dedaj
Christopher Di Bella
Richard Smith
Jon Ross-Perkins
MarchMore
Jon Meowandjosh11b
