Adopt Django CoC WG's affiliated programs#446
Conversation
Updated the Code of Conduct to include new reporting guidelines and scenarios for making a report. Added sections on reporting transparency and incident report filing. References: django/code-of-conduct#91
This is based off the Djangonaut Space code of conduct policy.
ryancheley
left a comment
ryancheley
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tim-schilling this looks good. What is needed from a community approval perspective?
|
I suppose we can tag all the various teams in a comment to ask for their review? |
|
@django-commons/admins can I get an approval from each of you if you're good with these changes? If we're in alignment, I'll ping the rest of the community explicitly (though anyone can provide feedback now). |
|
@tim-schilling im good with the changes |
| [Reports can be made directly to the Django Code of Conduct working group](https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/reporting/) | ||
| in the following scenarios: | ||
|
|
||
| - The report concerns a Django Commons Admin and/or CoC team. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is new? I thought we considered Django's Code of Conduct Working Group as an appeal process, not as a direct channel.
I think we should keep our independence as much as possible and use django-coc only when all DC resources are exhausted. Something like this:
- If the report is about DC-CoC => Report to DC-admin.
- If the report is about DC-admin => Report to DC-CoC (no difference).
- If there is no response within 30 days => django-coc (I don't like this one, but I don't have any better suggestion)
- As a point of appeal within 30 days of the original decision
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These changes are what the Django CoC WG suggests for affiliated programs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes DC CoC redundant - just a step on the way to get to the "real" CoC team (that can make decisions regarding DC).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure that's a fair takeaway here as it suggests the "Reports can be made" is really "reports should be made". This exists to communicate when a person could consider who to file a report with. Django Commons is encouraged to operate autonomously from my interpretation of the affiliated programs CoC policy, which matches your desire to maintain independence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cunla I want to make sure this one doesn't get lost.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We definitely have no desire to become the first or primary place to report. The situations we outline in https://github.com/django/code-of-conduct/blob/main/affiliated-programs.md#becoming-an-affiliated-program-or-community were meant to be the only scenarios which the Django CoCWG feel comfortable getting involved in another community, not that they have to be required by those communities. We're happy to consider clearer language there.
dryan
left a comment
dryan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me @tim-schilling. I've opened django/code-of-conduct#99 on our side to get this done at our next regular meeting.
Co-authored-by: Daniel M <cunla@users.noreply.github.com>
|
The Working Group agreed to add Django Commons. We'll update our documentation shortly. We would also like know who our primary point of contact should be. I assume that's you @tim-schilling? |
|
@dryan yes, you can put me down as the point of contact for Django Commons. |
4 participants
Updated the Code of Conduct to include new reporting guidelines and scenarios for making a report to the Django CoC WG. Added sections on reporting transparency and incident report filing.
References: django/code-of-conduct#91