make repo public

[gbinal]

Any remaining steps needed?

[jackiekazil]

I think it needs some lawyer review that @annalee was working on?

[gbinal]

Hey team - checking in on this again.

[jackiekazil]

After a convo w/ @annalee, we identified the following steps.

• [x] Draft reporting process (Invite was just sent to take on this step)
• [x] Have Aaron/18F review & approve
• [x] Have HR review & approve
• [x] Have a legal review & approve

Then.... make public.

[ultrasaurus]

Original proposal was to make public using same process as blog posts and then do the whole reporting process as separate step. @gboone @OriHoffer -- what do you think?

FYI: we already used/published this for a specific event last year, so it shouldn't be a big deal

[jackiekazil]

According to @annalee, the reporting request came from @aaronsnow, so maybe he should chime in?

[annalee]

No, I brought the reporting question to @aaronsnow, not the other way around. Do we need any further approvals on the policy itself, or just on reporting?

[jackiekazil]

No... after aaron, I believe we were talking about lawyer and HR review. Shall we go down that route?

[ultrasaurus]

@annalee we need comms (@OriHoffer) review on the policy, just like for blog posts (approach originally discussed with / suggested by @quepol )

[NoahKunin]

All needed approvals in hand.

[jackiekazil]

@NoahKunin ty for pushing this foward! :+1:

[NoahKunin]

DONE!

:ship: :shipit: :ship:

[leahbannon]

[NoahKunin]

Given that the CoC has been updated, I retract my comment from 2 years ago, for the sake of clarity. Maybe the approvals are in hand - maybe not.

[andrewmaier]

@annalee @gbinal I reopened this over the weekend. Hoping to get this public again :)

[annalee]

@NoahKunin do you happen to have records of OGC approval for the first version? The repo is currently private pending an OGC review, but they don't have a record of approving V1, and even though several people within TTS are certain we got it approved, we can't find any records of it, either. Finding the email/gdoc/etc with the original 👍 from OGC might speed up the process for getting v2 approved.

[toolness]

Hey, does anyone have any suggestions for what to do about repositories whose CONTRIBUTING.md is pointing to the CoC in this repo, which now 404's for the general public due to this repo being private?

For instance, it'd be great if we had a simple federalist-based code-of-conduct.18f.gov site that just displayed whatever the latest, publicly visible, OGC-approved CoC is (which right now I guess would be v1.0)... As it stands, the CoC links on our projects are completely blocked to the public, which seems like it could adversely affect our contributorship. For example, from https://github.com/18F/web-design-standards/issues/1974:

The hyperlink to the 18F Code of Conduct is broken in the Welcome! section of the CONTRIBUTING.md file.

Please fix so that public contributors like myself can properly follow your code of conduct when contributing to 18F projects, such as the U.S. Web Design Standards.

[toolness]

Oh, a contributor on the other issue just mentioned that a copy of the CoC exists at https://18f.gsa.gov/code-of-conduct/. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to change the U.S. Web Design Standards' CoC to point at that instead, and I'm going to assume that URL will be updated to include v2.0 once it's approved by the OGC.

[toolness]

I just made a simple bash script that automatically makes the replacement and commits it as a separate branch called coc-fix, with an informative commit message (which then gets set as the PR description once a PR is made). Here it is, in case it's helpful for anyone else:

https://gist.github.com/toolness/caf79ae8ac8fe886259037336575fcae

[annalee]

Hey @toolness, please don't point to the old version of the CoC. The CoC is currently under OGC review and shouldn't be visible to the public. CC @smils - do we need to take the old version of the 18F site?

[smils]

Yes, I'm afraid we do need to take down the old one. Do you have the link handy?

(Good news is that a convo w/OGC this week was v productive, I'm hopeful we're about to make meaningful progress w/them.)

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Annalee notifications@github.com wrote:

Hey @toolness https://github.com/toolness, please don't point to the old version of the CoC. The CoC is currently under OGC review and shouldn't be visible to the public. CC @smils https://github.com/smils - do we need to take the old version of the 18F site?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/18F/code-of-conduct/issues/4#issuecomment-308471153, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASkqQO1aOLtrgfgJwIUgawkO686lMZkmks5sD_6RgaJpZM4DJHwJ .

-- Sarah Milstein Director of Outreach, 18F.gov

[toolness]

Oh, sorry about that... what kind of messaging should we give to the general public who are interested in contributing in the meantime? Can we put the messaging up at 18f.gsa.gov/code-of-conduct/ until we have the new version fully approved to post there?

[commit-dkp]

Just noting that https://18f.gsa.gov/code-of-conduct/ appears to be up. If the static version needs to be taken down for now, so be it, but the public and I would prefer that this repo not be private anymore.

[gbinal]

+1