Code of Conduct: Clarify authority and assimilate pledge to RFC 102/NixOS foundation mission statement #14
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1. The new “Aim” literally cites and therefore mirrors more exactly than the former “Pledge” the guidelines given to the moderation team in [RFC 102](https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/c65c8321782b40844167beb48818471f70900d9d/rfcs/0102-moderation-team.md). 2. The new phrasing clarifies the authority of the code of conduct: It is a policy the moderation team gave itself. Reasoning: The actual code of conduct seems reasonable and thus could make moderation decisions more transparent. However, the phrasing of the “Pledge” gave the impression to me and others ([discussion](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/new-code-of-conduct-discussion/35179)) that this document were ruled by the community and every contributor now would have to make this pledge. Such a pledge by the community could only be made via an RFC, as far as I understand. While making change 2., I noticed that the wording of the “Pledge” expressed essentially the same as the guidelines given in RFC 102. In my opinion, it is more transparent, if these very similar policies for the same thing are also phrased in the same way. Otherwise, the differences might be another source of discussion when arguing about decisions. If the longer list of traits not to be discriminated is preferable, then, I think, it is also preferable in the mission statement of the NixOS foundation.
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/new-code-of-conduct-discussion/35179/48 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The new “Aim” literally cites and therefore mirrors more exactly than the former “Pledge” the guidelines given to the moderation team in RFC 102.
The new phrasing clarifies the authority of the code of conduct: It is a policy the moderation team gave itself.
Reasoning:
The actual code of conduct seems reasonable and thus could make moderation decisions more transparent. However, the phrasing of the “Pledge” gave the impression to me and others (discussion) that this document were ruled by the community and every contributor now would have to make this pledge. Such a pledge by the community could only be made via an RFC, as far as I understand.
While making change 2., I noticed that the wording of the “Pledge” expressed essentially the same as the guidelines given in RFC 102. In my opinion, it is more transparent, if these very similar policies for the same thing are also phrased in the same way. Otherwise, the differences might be another source of discussion when arguing about decisions.
If the longer list of traits not to be discriminated is preferable, then, I think, it is also preferable in the mission statement of the NixOS foundation.