Agree and adopt a Code of Conduct for Iris

[bjlittle]

By## 📰 Custom Issue

I think that we should have a code of conduct for the iris community, which is highlighted as a good practice in the GH repo community standards

There are various "off-the-shelf" code of conducts that could be adopted, as suggested by GH i.e.,

• the Contributor Covenant
• the Citizen Code of Conduct

Alternatively, some packages choose to adopt the same or adapt (i.e., draw inspiration from) code of conducts from other leading packages, such as:

• the NumPy Code of Conduct
• the SciPy Code of Conduct

I'm sure there are more to choose from if we seriously looked... but in general I'd like to believe that having a code of conduct is way better than having no code of conduct.

Note that, xarray choose to follow the Contributor Covenant, as do matplotlib.

Have Your Say

🗳️ See the GH Disscusions Poll #5197

Deadline

🕔 The vote is open until 17h00 (GMT) Fri 28 Apr 23.

[bjlittle]

To start the ball rolling...

1. I'd personally vote for adopting the Contributor Covenant v2.1 (latest)
2. Raise a PR on the Contributor Covenant repo for Registering Your Community as an Adopter.

[trexfeathers]

I need to do more reading later, but I expect this is in the same space:

https://fair-software.eu/

I've seen a few of these badges around.

[bjlittle]

I need to do more reading later, but I expect this is in the same space:

https://fair-software.eu/

I've seen a few of these badges around.

That's from the eScience Center where @bouweandela works (if I'm not mistaken)

[rcomer]

On one occasion so far I have had reason to point to Matplotlib's Code of Conduct, and was kinda glad it was there. It may never come up, but the effort to add one seems minimal, so 👍 from me.

[bouweandela]

That's from the eScience Center where @bouweandela works (if I'm not mistaken)

Yes, some of my colleagues are very active in building and promoting things to make research software more FAIR. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to ask them for you.

[ESadek-MO]

@bjlittle, @SciTools/peloton were wondering if you'd be happy to make a table of options (including forgoing a CoC) which could be voted on?

[bjlittle]

@bjlittle, @SciTools/peloton were wondering if you'd be happy to make a table of options (including forgoing a CoC) which could be voted on?

Done. See the updated issue description.

How long do you guys want the vote to be open?

[lbdreyer]

How long do you guys want the vote to be open?

Would a month be okay? If that's too long we could go for 2 weeks?
We just need enough time for people to investigate the options if they want to vote

Also, I wonder whether this should have been a discussion rather than an issue?

[bjlittle]

Tis now a discussion 🥳

[bjlittle]

@lbdreyer Let's give it until the end of April. That seems sufficient time enough. We can always extend, if need be.

It's always good to have a line in the sand 👍

I'll add the end of voting deadline to the description.

[bjlittle]

I need to do more reading later, but I expect this is in the same space:
https://fair-software.eu/

I've seen a few of these badges around.

That's from the eScience Center where @bouweandela works (if I'm not mistaken)

If I'm not mistaken, this seems to be more "general guiding principles" (borrowed from FAIR) applied to research software development, rather than a CoC, right?

[bouweandela]

Yes, see here.

[bjlittle]

Awesome, thanks for confirming @bouweandela 🍻

[bjlittle]

Doesn't mean that we can't adopt these principles, but that's a separate discussion.