search

dask / governance

The governance process and model for Dask
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
7 stars 10 forks source link

Add code of conduct #10

Closed jrbourbeau closed 5 years ago

jrbourbeau commented 5 years ago

This PR adds a code of conduct for Dask. The starting point is the Contributor Covenant, with modifications made based on discussion in #6 and further discussion to be had here. Closes #6.

TomAugspurger commented 5 years ago

How are we going to determine whether or not and when to merge this? Consensus or majority of "dask developers"? Some other process?

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

How are we going to determine whether or not and when to merge this? Consensus or majority of "dask developers"? Some other process?

Lets aim for consensus for a while. For this topic in particular I think it's important that everyone's views be heard and integrated, and that everyone feel comfortable with what we come up with. Given the conversation so far I think that this is pretty achievable.

TomAugspurger commented 5 years ago

Consensus is my preference as well.

Does anyone have objections to setting a (soft) deadline for comments on the proposal, and then some time to collect +/- 1s?

martindurant commented 5 years ago

I think the text is fine, and I have nothing specific I'd like to change. The lists of specific things we wish not to discriminate on is all a bit weird for me, and I wish there could be an easier way to say "we hope that we shall treat each other as humans".

For the issue of anonymous complains, would a webform which sends an email to the conduct address, with appropriate capcha, work?

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

The lists of specific things we wish not to discriminate on is all a bit weird for me, and I wish there could be an easier way to say "we hope that we shall treat each other as humans".

@pitrou brought up a similar point in #6 here:

https://github.com/dask/governance/issues/6#issuecomment-446534377

My response to this from that issue follows below:

One way in which these codes differ is in the extent to which they enumerate specific classes of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. As I see it the benefit to non-enumeration is that it has longevity and also doesn't allow for people to say "but my behavior wasn't specifically listed". As I see it the benefit to enumeration is that it welcomes people who might feel specifically at-risk for a particular type of bad behavior, and it also makes it easier for community maintainers to point to the code in the case of an infraction. "You clearly said X, which is clearly listed on our code" rather than "You said something that was offensive as I interpret it".

Given the short lifespan of software projects (Python excluded) I'm somewhat inclined towards more specific enumeration of common forms of harrassment today. I don't expect this list to change significantly over the lifetime of the project, which I anticipate as lasting no more than 10 years.

I like the PSF CoC, but I like the explicit style of the Contributor Covenant a bit more. This is mostly because if someone makes crude statements like a "yo momma's so fat that ..." joke or "that's gay" then I can very clearly point to a line in the CoC and have a very short discussion, rather than have to go back and forth about what should or should not be considered offensive within this community.

To be clear, I apologize using the statements above, both of which I consider to be offensive and not acceptable within this community. It's just very useful to have a couple concrete examples when discussing this topic.

martindurant commented 5 years ago

Indeed, I agree - my point should be read more as a vague "I wish the world were better than this" :)

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

Ah, indeed!

jrbourbeau commented 5 years ago

We discussed the status of this CoC on the monthly Dask call today (ref the meeting notes at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UqNAP87a56ERH_xkQsS5Q_0PKYybd5Lj2WANy_hRzI0/edit). I'll summarize the discussion here.

The last remaining issues here are to:

  1. Figure out how to submit CoC concerns and
  2. Determine who reads/checks these concerns

For the first point, I've set up a couple of ways for submitting concerns:

As to who reads/checks these concerns, it was discussed in the meeting that we should try for a group of 3-5 people. I'm happy to be one of these people. It was also brought up that it would be nice to have someone on this who isn’t a 20s/30s-white-male.

Does anyone here want to either volunteer to help monitor CoC concerns, or know of someone not here who would be good for this?

TomAugspurger commented 5 years ago

Thanks for setting up the email and form.

I'm also willing to volunteer, but would happily give way to someone else.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:07 PM James Bourbeau notifications@github.com wrote:

We discussed the status of this CoC on the monthly Dask call today (ref the meeting notes at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UqNAP87a56ERH_xkQsS5Q_0PKYybd5Lj2WANy_hRzI0/edit). I'll summarize the discussion here.

The last remaining issues here are to:

  1. Figure out how to submit CoC concerns and
  2. Determine who reads/checks these concerns

For the first point, I've set up a couple of ways for submitting concerns:

  • Concerns can be e-mailed to dask-conduct@googlegroups.com
  • A Google form (https://goo.gl/forms/YHc1pc9POZRH7RDt2) can be used to submit concerns. Fields like name and e-mail are optional in the form to allow for submitting concerns anonymously.

As to who reads/checks these concerns, it was discussed in the meeting that we should try for a group of 3-5 people. I'm happy to be one of these people. It was also brought up that it would be nice to have someone on this who isn’t a 20s/30s-white-male.

Does anyone here want to either volunteer to help monitor CoC concerns, or know of someone not here who would be good for this?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/dask/governance/pull/10#issuecomment-470776304, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABQHIhFKhrpwL8X5YrdIL0aId7AVbZwbks5vUcXhgaJpZM4Zc0Dk .

jrbourbeau commented 5 years ago

Thanks @TomAugspurger!

If possible, I think having a minimum of 3 people handling CoC concerns would be ideal. That way we can have an additional point of view and also avoid a potential even 1-1 split on topics. Just to reiterate, would anyone here either like to help monitor CoC concerns, or know of someone not here who would be good for this?

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

I'd be happy to be on such a committee. I reached out to a couple people to help improve diversity, but didn't get much response.

jrbourbeau commented 5 years ago

Thanks @mrocklin! I've specified you, @TomAugspurger, and myself as the relevant members who will receive and review reports

jrbourbeau commented 5 years ago

All lingering concerns should have been addressed in the current CoC draft.

At this point, I'd ask for us all to try to review this draft over the next few days and voice any final comments/questions/edits/etc we may have. In terms of a timeline, I propose, barring any large changes, that we start collecting +/- 1s starting this Friday (April 5).

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

Thanks for pushing this through @jrbourbeau !

I'll try to review this before the Thursday meeting as well.

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

I've read things over and things seem sensible to me.

TomAugspurger commented 5 years ago

+1

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

@pitrou if you have a moment can I ask you to look over this document?

pitrou commented 5 years ago

@mrocklin Ok, I took a quick look. I hope I'm not rehashing previous questions.

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

If there are no further comments then I suggest that we merge this in 48 hours. All current owners have been informed of this PR and the intent to merge.

mrocklin commented 5 years ago

Merging this in. Thank you @jrbourbeau for starting and guiding this process.