I propose we establish a Code of Conduct to foster an open, welcoming, and inclusive environment for all participants.
The Forgejo code of conduct could be an interesting starting point:
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/code-of-conduct/src/branch/main
Make of this what you will.
Duplicate of #1978
Oh thanks ! I guess I missed that. closing.
wait a second, the discussion is open to "collaborators" only :(
I will respect the decision of @ohfp and not reopen this issue then.
But I truly believe a CoC would help get rid of those useless personal comments/attacks.
I am 100% for a CoC but I think that it will realistically lead to more personal attacks at first like it already has
I will carefully reopen this for now. While it might not be a "high priority" issue for now (mostly because I think much of our stances on things have been made quite clear recently), or rather: there's also a whole backlog of more tech related things that also need some attention ;), I do think it's an important one. I've talked to a few folks about this, whose expertise, knowledge, experience and advice both in technical and social matters I value very highly. I think a proper CoC would indeed have the potential to make some basic things very clear, and while this would not necessarily curb bad faith comments or dissuade folks with the intent to stir up conflict, it would also potentially encourage folks who'd otherwise maybe be reluctant to even participate at all, if they couldn't expect to be welcomed and taken a stance for.
While CoCs might also cause issues, as mused about in the previous issue, I do now think it might be worth to still give things a try; if one were clear enough about how a CoC would not be a 100%-perfect-law, but instead accepting inherent ambiguities (and making clear that trying to abuse a CoC would also be not accepted, for example), and especially in combination with something like a "Social Contract", it should be clear enough as to how things are "meant" in more complicated situations.
So with the other issue bringing in a bit of "baggage", it'd probably be best to use this one instead ^^
Some further thoughts: it might not be best for me, being the one being a bit of "the target", to lead these efforts, as this might indeed draw in more trouble for the project at a whole. At the same time, this issue (or: all this "in general) is one near and dear to my heart, as one might've already assumed, so I also wouldn't want to have it not being addressed. We'll have to see how it goes.
As to starting points: I'm quite fond of what the Tor project has done, not only with their, imho, very well-written CoC, but especially in conjunction with their Social Contract and Statement of Values. I believe that a similar approach might be the (or rather: a potentially good) way to approach this, that might avoid many pitfalls a CoC might bring right away.
https://community.torproject.org/policies/code_of_conduct/
https://community.torproject.org/policies/social_contract/
https://community.torproject.org/policies/statement_of_values/
I have here the CoC for GNU Mailman. I do like it, because it's simple short and sweet. The Forgejo CoC is also small and clear... and includes a clear path for corrections. The Tor CoC is also good. I would lean to the Forgejo one, cuz it spells out the consequences.
Agree with @Threadpanic, GNU Mailman's code of conduct is easy to remind, apolitical and simple. Good suggestion!
I'm ok with all 3 suggestions (as starting points). They all have their advantages.
Defining corrections and consequences would indeed be a plus.
If explicitly stating that forbidding insulting, trolling, harrassing, degradatory comments, and personal attacks of anyone is political, I'm ok with political.
Also except for off-topic channels, I'd add that only technical subjects related to LibreWolf should be allowed.
Warnings is good, reviewing of conflicts should be done and discussed by a bunch of moderators. providing explanations to the user why they got that warning may help as well.
No warning for obvious trolling, otherwise we'd spend our time reviewing.
Hello @ak42, "insulting, trolling, harassing, derogatory comments and personal attacks" are unsocial behaviors (especially on an online community that contributes to OSS, aka coding), nothing political about that, but we do understand what you meant to say.
obviously, you don't.
I'm not into thought policing. think whatever you want. as long as you keep a considerate and respectful social behavior. I just don't care.
But I'd ask you not to try to thought police me as well.
In my CoC framework, this:
but we do understand what you meant to say.
Is a non constructive personal comment, that would trigger a warning.
Thank you for providing an example of "Don't"
I might have over interpreted that sentence and over reacted on this one.
English is not my mother tongue, and it probably is not yours as well.
sorry if that was the case @kernamon.
reading this:
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md
now I'm wondering if this is actually required as Codeberg already covers it.
The matrix channels aren't convered by that
oh, true, I forgot about that.
Oh, yes. I forgot about that too.
In that case, your original Forgejo CoC should what we adopt. Please note that we can choose any that's generally reasonable to all. They don't have to be perfectly aligned to the words, just the fact that we have a CoC (for matrix, reddit, codeberg) is already a great win in itself cuz then the ops 'have something' to work with. Sounds good?
maybe it could be worth it forbidding misleading AI generated issues like this one: #2393
😅
You should also forbid people from making mistakes ...
@fontana don't take this suggestion personally. This is just a discussion about a future potential Code Of Conduct...
People will have the opportunity to read it and avoid mistakes.
And added to that mistakes can still happen, that is why in code of conducts there also is the idea of warnings with consequences for continued behaviour.
Mistakes happen, and that is obviously not a problem.
No problem, I understood and I agree with you
No due date set.
No dependencies set.
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?