Code of Conduct, mk II

[othiym23]

Changes from the original:

• does not include contribution policy and governance documents
• explicitly defines the scope of the Node.js Project
• explicitly defines harrassment
• explicitly defines consequences
• adds grievance policy
• introduces notion of specific points of contact for abuse reports; still need a list of actual names to go into the policy
• adds credit and link to the npm, Inc. Code of Conduct
• incorporates community feedback

Please limit discussion on this issue to the Code of Conduct itself:

• ambiguous or confusing wording
• typos
• contradictions
• scope of the document

Discussion of the necessity or relevance of a Code of Conduct for the Node.js Project is irrelevant to this PR, and should be conducted elsewhere.

[mikeal]

I love all the new additions. We should ping the Rust people when we're finished to see if they'd like to adopt any of our iterations :+1:

[dshaw]

Thank you, @othiym23. This seems to address the concerns tabled and provides us with a admirable starting point.

At this point, we should hand this off for acceptance.

[ahdinosaur]

looks good to me :+1: , thanks @othiym23 and everyone involved.

[isaacs]

@gramergrater Your comment is not about the current PR, and I have deleted it for that reason. Please find another venue to vent your frustration. The internet is full of options.

[polotek]

This is shaping up nicely. Thanks @othiym23. I'd ask folks here to keep in mind that the language doesn't have to be perfect and can always be revised. The leaders of this community will embody the spirit of this effort. Having their names and contact info published is important. These things work because people who care stand behind them. I wanna reiterate that I really appreciate this effort.

[gramergrater]

@isaacs If you had actually read the comment you would've known exactly why I posted it here. None of my concerns in that comment have been addressed. Simply removing comments you disagree with is no way to engage in a discussion with the community as there can be no discussion. You locked the other PR. I did my best to be reasonable under the assumption that you would do the same. I guess not. I think it's very sad to see you behave this way and hope you'll learn to be more respectful in the future rather than forcefully have everything go the way you like. I'm sorry if you feel these words aren't as nice as you would expect from a member of the community but in my position, it's getting difficult.

[isaacs]

@gramergrater I did read your comment. It was not in any way related to this patch.

I'm not removing comments I disagree with. I'm removing comments that are off topic, distracting, or creating an unsafe environment for other members of the Node community who would like to participate.

In fact, I disagree with this patch for a few reasons. I of course agree in principle with most of this as an aspirational goal (after all, it's based largely on the npm CoC, which I helped create).

However, I also feel it overreaches, given the organizational capacity of the Node project at this time. I think a smaller step would be more reasonable at this time, which is why I was more in favor of the Rust-style CoC which sticks solely to behavior in the project itself.

Until we come to consensus on governance, and then the governing body can put together an appropriate set of procedures for receiving reports, etc., even getting into this level of detail is a bit tricky. I worry that we're making promises we can't reasonably keep.

I'd really like to hear more input from the Governance Working Group, especially. It's a shame that some good feedback was buried in #11, and I'm trying to avoid that happening again.

[othiym23]

@isaacs I too am interested in feedback from the Node.js Advisory Board, the Governance Working Group, and the Technical Committee. Were something to be adopted that was contrary to the desires of (any of) the people responsible for enforcing it, it's unlikely the guidance it suggests would be be followed with any consistency, rendering it worse than useless. I made the additions I did because I felt that the first draft was incomplete (and because @mikeal asked me to ;). There is language in there that I am not 100% on board with, and see this as a basis for discussion rather than a final product.

That said, the community feedback is welcome, and I'm heartened to see that many people feel that some of the new material is welcome. We should hold on to as much of that as we can. In particular, even if the language in various sections overreaches, I think having distinct sections covering scope, contact info, consequences, a grievance policy, and an explicit definition of harassment that meets Node.js community approval (i.e. inline, not linked from outside) is something that is very helpful to me in understanding both the Code and its likely implications.

[gramergrater]

@sstjohn Please remain calm, but I would also like to know who or what is removing everything from this user. Let's not turn a PR for something that's supposed to be the nicest document in node into a freedom of speech issue, as that would only fuel more melodrama rather than less.

@isaacs Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I understand this isn't the easiest thing to deal with but it'll have to be done somehow. In the interest of saving all of us a lot of time and work, please take a look at the Django Code of Conduct. I think it's well thought-out and plenty robust. There's also a useful enforcement manual and reporting guide in place. Perhaps we could adapt these documents for node and not get into all these finicky discussions over details?

[andrewdeandrade]

please take a look at the Django Code of Conduct. I think it's well thought-out and plenty robust.

I'd also suggest considering the Hope X Code of Conduct. It appeared to work well.

Just read both and agree that both have much better language. +1

[ceejbot]

Moderators: If you cannot be present on the weekend to give this discussion the moderation it clearly requires, please lock it to contributors only. Re-open for wider discussion on a day when you have the bandwidth to remove off-topic & attention-seeking comments promptly. cc @dshaw @isaacs

[isaacs]

The majority of the JNAB governance working group already agreed to a CoC based on Rust's (as seen in #11). Another proposal was made to pursue a broader CoC with more explicit policies for enforcement, more modeled after npm's CoC.

Both proposals were broadly supported by many in the node community, including a few who have avoided participation with the project because of the lack of a CoC, and both proposals have been attacked in principle by a very vocal minority.

Until the working group can meet to discuss these proposals' relative value, and the value of having a CoC as such, quibbling over the particulars of the language is distracting and unhelpful. We are simply not yet at that stage, and legalistic bikeshedding is premature.

Locked. We can reopen this for further discussion when the advisory board working group has time to keep up.

[k1tm]

Couple of thoughts for AB members:

Who reviews a situation that arises and makes a determination to exclude an individual?

Who does an individual that feels they have wrongly been accused of a violation appeal to?