search

nodejs / hardware

Hardware Working Group
42 stars 16 forks source link

First draft of the new CoC #7

Closed nebrius closed 8 years ago

nebrius commented 9 years ago

In addition to anything else you see, please let me know your thoughts on the following:

nebrius commented 9 years ago

Another question for the group: what is the best way, from a technical perspective, to manage user banning for infractions?

I think that blocking the offending user using GitHub's blocking capability is the best approach (and I mentioned this in the PR). GitHub currently only has the ability for one user to block another user AFAICT (https://help.github.com/articles/blocking-a-user/). One side affect of blocking is that the blocked user is not allowed to interact with repos owned/admin'd by the blocking user, which achieves what we want for this repo.

When a user is banned from the Hardware WG, should they be banned from all Working Groups? All of Node.js? (probably not).

If not, do we want to create a special "hardware-wg-admin" user who's sole purpose is to enforce bans? I suspect in this case that using an actual person's main account would enforce a ban that is too far reaching, and won't work.

@mikeal I would be especially curious to here your thoughts.

voodootikigod commented 9 years ago

:+1: on this

mikeal commented 9 years ago

repos you own

Does this extend to repos in orgs you are an admin of?

mikeal commented 9 years ago

When a user is banned from the Hardware WG, should they be banned from all Working Groups? All of Node.js? (probably not).

Eventually we will have a project/foundation wide CoC (which will be minimal and still require WGs to have an additional CoC) and if someone violates the project wide CoC they should be banned project wide but it'll be a little while until we have this other CoC ready because lawyers will have to be involved. I wouldn't block on this and would just ban from the Hardware WG for now, but please keep private documentation somewhere about these bans and their reasoning so we can additionally ban them project/foundation wide once we have that CoC in place presuming their infraction violates both CoCs.

nebrius commented 9 years ago

Does this extend to repos in orgs you are an admin of?

That does not appear to be the case, according to the help article, although I sent a message to GitHub asking for clarification just now.

Eventually we will have a project/foundation wide CoC (which will be minimal and still require WGs to have an additional CoC) and if someone violates the project wide CoC they should be banned project wide but it'll be a little while until we have this other CoC ready because lawyers will have to be involved. I wouldn't block on this and would just ban from the Hardware WG for now, but please keep private documentation somewhere about these bans and their reasoning so we can additionally ban them project/foundation wide once we have that CoC in place presuming their infraction violates both CoCs.

:+1:

nebrius commented 9 years ago

@mikeal ok, I heard back from GitHub, and only repo owners can block access to a repo currently. The person I was chatting with hinted that there are discussions on how to beef this up, but couldn't tell me anything specific of course.

If an issue comes up, we can also contact GitHub support and work with them to handle the issue in a more one-off manner.

I also submitted a feature request for the ability to block by repo, and not just by user, fwiw.

mikeal commented 9 years ago

ok, we could write a minimal tool with an API key for an owner of the org that bans in every repo if we need to.

nebrius commented 9 years ago

:+1:

@voodootikigod are you willing to be one of the points of contact for the CoC? I'm on board, and so is @nodebotanist. If you're in, can I get a preferred email address? This email address will be publicly visible.

voodootikigod commented 9 years ago

Yes. voodootikigod@gmail.com

On Friday, June 26, 2015, Bryan Hughes notifications@github.com wrote:

[image: :+1:]

@voodootikigod https://github.com/voodootikigod are you willing to be one of the points of contact for the CoC? I'm on board, and so is @nodebotanist https://github.com/nodebotanist. If you're in, can I get a preferred email address? This email address will be publicly visible.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/nodejs/hardware/pull/7#issuecomment-115855427.

Chris Williams

@voodootikigod http://twitter.com/voodootikigod | GitHub http://github.com/voodootikigod

The things I make that you should check out: SaferAging http://www.saferaging.com/ | JSConf http://jsconf.com/ | RobotsConf http://robotsconf.com/ | RobotsWeekly http://robotsweekly.com/

Help me end the negativity on the internet, share this http://jsconf.eu/2011/an_end_to_negativity.html.

nebrius commented 9 years ago

I think the CoC should be functional now. For the time being I set up a temporary mailing list off my own domain at nodejshardware@theoreticalideations.com for people to email issues to, and I have no problems using this short or long term (it doesn't cost me anything). Of course, it doesn't look very elegant :)

Do we have access to, for example, the nodejs.org domain that we could set up a mailing list on?

nebrius commented 8 years ago

Closing this because we currently have the Node CoC in place, and the inclusivity WG is working on a CoC too (with a lot more eyes on it than we'll get here)