From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2016-01-26T14:40:15-05:00 Subject: [ruby-core:73489] Re: [Ruby trunk - Misc #12004] Code of Conduct --===============1187822543== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113aca4ed707ae052a41dd65 --001a113aca4ed707ae052a41dd65 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chuck: C4.1 contains a poorly-specified, but *real* code of conduct: Administrators SHOULD block or ban "bad actors" who cause stress and pain > to others in the project. This should be done after public discussion, wi= th > a chance for all parties to speak. A bad actor is someone who repeatedly > ignores the rules and culture of the project, who is needlessly > argumentative or hostile, or who is offensive, and who is unable to > self-correct their behavior when asked to do so by others The =E2=80=9Crules and culture=E2=80=9D of the project do not appear to be = written, at least there, but they are guidelines toward participation. (It would be better if they were written.) C4.1 is also a really good document overall. With changes to reflect Ruby= =E2=80=99s nature, licensing, etc. (plus a bit to specify some of Ruby=E2=80=99s =E2= =80=9Crules and culture=E2=80=9D), it would probably be a good option here. However, the mass adoption of CoCs by projects has only started over the last year or so; push for this data next year. I suspect that 0mq didn=E2= =80=99t see an immediate pick-up, but saw it as a result of (1) application of C4.1 and (2) outreach. I don=E2=80=99t know since I=E2=80=99m not part of that c= ommunity. As I have said earlier in this thread, I am not *that* interested in the data myself. Sometimes there is a clear =E2=80=9Cright=E2=80=9D and =E2=80= =9Cwrong=E2=80=9D, and I see having *some* CoC that makes one=E2=80=99s stance on harassment clear as a = clear =E2=80=9Cright=E2=80=9D. -a On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, wrote: > Issue #12004 has been updated by Chuck Remes. > > > In #371, Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene listed several projects that have adopted > the CoC and asked if any of the feared downsides of a CoC have arisen. I > think we should ask an opposite question. Have any of those projects seen > an *increase* in participation? Have any marginalized peoples suddenly > joined the community and contributed (via code, bug reports, documentatio= n, > etc)? And if there is an increase, is it statistically measurable on an > on-going basis or just a one-off? > > I'm too lazy to do the work to prove this out one way or the other, but > then again the burden of proof to adopt a CoC is on its proponents. They > should do the work to prove a CoC's value *particularly* since it will > create more work for the core team. > > I'm going to go on a short tangent. I am a long time member of the Zeromq > community. Several years ago there was a falling out between two core > contributors and one of them ended up leaving the project (to start XS an= d > Nano projects). The arguments and split were handled very well without an= y > CoC in place at all. > > The core contributor learned quite a bit from that experience. He ended u= p > devising a new process for contributors and community participants. After > some evolution, he made a nice post on it and calls it the C4.1 process. > See here for details: http://hintjens.com/blog:93 > > Furthermore, his efforts to grow the community were wildly successful. Th= e > community absolutely exploded in the months following the personnel chang= e. > Code contributions and bug reports came from a whole group of new people > who had never participated before because the guideline (NOT a CoC) lower= ed > the barriers for participation. The community was vibrant before the > project fork but afterwards it was vibrant X 10. > > This community renewal all occurred without a CoC. > > It could be argued that the Ruby community is already stronger than the > zeromq community but it could always be stronger. Perhaps it should look = to > the C4.1 process as a potential way for improving interest and > participation? > > At minimum, the CoC proponents should *prove* via some metric (community > participation, more/better PRs, bug reports, etc) that adopting a CoC wil= l > benefit this project. So far it just sounds like more work for Core. > > ---------------------------------------- > Misc #12004: Code of Conduct > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#change-56710 > > * Author: Coraline Ada Ehmke > * Status: Assigned > * Priority: Normal > * Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto > ---------------------------------------- > I am the creator of the Contributor Covenant, a code of conduct for Open > Source projects. At last count there are over 13,000 projects on Github > that have adopted it. This past year saw adoption of Contributor Covenant > by a lot of very large, very visible projects, including Rails, Github's > Atom text editor, Angular JS, bundler, curl, diaspora, discourse, Eclipse= , > rspec, shoes, and rvm. The bundler team made code of conduct integration = an > option in the gem creation workflow, putting it on par with license > selection. Many open source language communities have already adopted the > code of conduct, including Elixir, Mono, the .NET foundation, F#, and > Apple's Swift. RubyTogether also adopted a policy to only fund Ruby > projects that had a solid code of conduct in place. > > Right now in the PHP community there is a healthy debate about adopting > the Contributor Covenant. Since it came from and has been so widely adopt= ed > by the Ruby community at large, I think it's time that we consider adopti= ng > it for the core Ruby language as well. > > Our community prides itself on niceness. What a code of conduct does is > define what we mean by nice. It states clearly that we value openness, > courtesy, and compassion. That we care about and want contributions from > people who may be different from us. That we pledge to respect all > contributors regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or oth= er > factors. And it makes it clear that we are prepared to follow through on > these values with action when and if an incident arises. > > I'm asking that we join with the larger Ruby community in supporting the > adoption of the Contributor Covenant for the Ruby language. I think that > this will be an important step forward and will ensure the continued > welcoming and supportive environment around Ruby. You can read the full > text of the Contributor Covenant at > http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/ and learn more at > http://contributor-covenant.org/. > > Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to hearing your thoughts= . > > > ---Files-------------------------------- > Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 6.45.23 PM.png (595 KB) > Ruby_Code_of_Conduct_Numbers.png (119 KB) > Ruby_Code_of_Conduct_Discussion.png (143 KB) > > > -- > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ > > Unsubscribe: > > --=20 Austin Ziegler =E2=80=A2 halostatue@gmail.com =E2=80=A2 austin@halostatue.c= a http://www.halostatue.ca/ =E2=80=A2 http://twitter.com/halostatue --001a113aca4ed707ae052a41dd65 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chuck:

C4.1 contains a poorly-specified= , but *real* code of conduct:

Administ= rators SHOULD block or ban "bad actors" who cause stress and pain= to others in the project. This should be done after public discussion, wit= h a chance for all parties to speak. A bad actor is someone who repeatedly = ignores the rules and culture of the project, who is needlessly argumentati= ve or hostile, or who is offensive, and who is unable to self-correct their= behavior when asked to do so by others

The= =E2=80=9Crules and culture=E2=80=9D of the project do not appear to be wri= tten, at least there, but they are guidelines toward participation. (It wou= ld be better if they were written.)

C4.1 is also a= really good document overall. With changes to reflect Ruby=E2=80=99s natur= e, licensing, etc. (plus a bit to specify some of Ruby=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cr= ules and culture=E2=80=9D), it would probably be a good option here.
<= div>
However, the mass adoption of CoCs by projects has only = started over the last year or so; push for this data next year. I suspect t= hat 0mq didn=E2=80=99t see an immediate pick-up, but saw it as a result of = (1) application of C4.1 and (2) outreach. I don=E2=80=99t know since I=E2= =80=99m not part of that community.

As I have said= earlier in this thread, I am not *that* interested in the data myself. Som= etimes there is a clear =E2=80=9Cright=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cwrong=E2=80=9D= , and I see having *some* CoC that makes one=E2=80=99s stance on harassment= clear as a clear =E2=80=9Cright=E2=80=9D.

-a

On Tue, Ja= n 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, <git@chuckremes.com> wrote:
Issue #12004 has been updated by Chuck Remes.

In #371, Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene listed several projects that have adopted t= he CoC and asked if any of the feared downsides of a CoC have arisen. I thi= nk we should ask an opposite question. Have any of those projects seen an *= increase* in participation? Have any marginalized peoples suddenly joined t= he community and contributed (via code, bug reports, documentation, etc)? A= nd if there is an increase, is it statistically measurable on an on-going b= asis or just a one-off?

I'm too lazy to do the work to prove this out one way or the other, but= then again the burden of proof to adopt a CoC is on its proponents. They s= hould do the work to prove a CoC's value *particularly* since it will c= reate more work for the core team.

I'm going to go on a short tangent. I am a long time member of the Zero= mq community. Several years ago there was a falling out between two core co= ntributors and one of them ended up leaving the project (to start XS and Na= no projects). The arguments and split were handled very well without any Co= C in place at all.

The core contributor learned quite a bit from that experience. He ended up = devising a new process for contributors and community participants. After s= ome evolution, he made a nice post on it and calls it the C4.1 process. See= here for details:=C2=A0 http://hintjens.com/blog:93

Furthermore, his efforts to grow the community were wildly successful. The = community absolutely exploded in the months following the personnel change.= Code contributions and bug reports came from a whole group of new people w= ho had never participated before because the guideline (NOT a CoC) lowered = the barriers for participation. The community was vibrant before the projec= t fork but afterwards it was vibrant X 10.

This community renewal all occurred without a CoC.

It could be argued that the Ruby community is already stronger than the zer= omq community but it could always be stronger. Perhaps it should look to th= e C4.1 process as a potential way for improving interest and participation?=

At minimum, the CoC proponents should *prove* via some metric (community pa= rticipation, more/better PRs, bug reports, etc) that adopting a CoC will be= nefit this project. So far it just sounds like more work for Core.

----------------------------------------
Misc #12004: Code of Conduct
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#c= hange-56710

* Author: Coraline Ada Ehmke
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
----------------------------------------
I am the creator of the Contributor Covenant, a code of conduct for Open So= urce projects. At last count there are over 13,000 projects on Github that = have adopted it. This past year saw adoption of Contributor Covenant by a l= ot of very large, very visible projects, including Rails, Github's Atom= text editor, Angular JS, bundler, curl, diaspora, discourse, Eclipse, rspe= c, shoes, and rvm. The bundler team made code of conduct integration an opt= ion in the gem creation workflow, putting it on par with license selection.= Many open source language communities have already adopted the code of con= duct, including Elixir, Mono, the .NET foundation, F#, and Apple's Swif= t. RubyTogether also adopted a policy to only fund Ruby projects that had a= solid code of conduct in place.

Right now in the PHP community there is a healthy debate about adopting the= Contributor Covenant. Since it came from and has been so widely adopted by= the Ruby community at large, I think it's time that we consider adopti= ng it for the core Ruby language as well.

Our community prides itself on niceness. What a code of conduct does is def= ine what we mean by nice. It states clearly that we value openness, courtes= y, and compassion. That we care about and want contributions from people wh= o may be different from us. That we pledge to respect all contributors rega= rdless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or other factors. And it = makes it clear that we are prepared to follow through on these values with = action when and if an incident arises.

I'm asking that we join with the larger Ruby community in supporting th= e adoption of the Contributor Covenant for the Ruby language. I think that = this will be an important step forward and will ensure the continued welcom= ing and supportive environment around Ruby. You can read the full text of t= he Contributor Covenant at http://contributor-covenant= .org/version/1/3/0/ and learn more at http://contributor-covenan= t.org/.

Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.<= br>

---Files--------------------------------
Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 6.45.23 PM.png (595 KB)
Ruby_Code_of_Conduct_Numbers.png (119 KB)
Ruby_Code_of_Conduct_Discussion.png (143 KB)


--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.= org?subject=3Dunsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/m= ailman/options/ruby-core>



--
=
Austin Ziegler =E2=80=A2 halostatue@gmail.com =E2=80=A2 <= a href=3D"mailto:austin@halostatue.ca" target=3D"_blank">austin@halostatue.= ca
http://ww= w.halostatue.ca/ =E2=80=A2 http://twitter.com/halostatue
--001a113aca4ed707ae052a41dd65-- --===============1187822543== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Unsubscribe: --===============1187822543==--