Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a Code of Conduct #3530

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

CasualPokePlayer
Copy link
Member

@CasualPokePlayer CasualPokePlayer commented Jan 21, 2023

rendered

This is taken largely from https://github.com/TASVideos/tasvideos/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

Who to contact for these kinds of issues is still up for discussion. I wasn't sure what to put in here so I only kept in adelikat's email.

Before this is merged, I would like for all currently "active" (i.e. anyone with push access and has committed within the last year) developers to agree to this CoC before merging, and affirming they understand consquences of not following it:

A reply like this to this PR will be sufficient:

I, <username>, agree to follow the code of conduct defined in the BizHawk project. I understand violating this agreement will result in disciplinary action and may result in temporary or permanent removal from the BizHawk team.

This PR would be in response to #3172

@vadosnaprimer
Copy link
Contributor

using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account

Do we have those?

If you are unsure whether an incident is a violation, or whether the space where the incident took place is covered by our Code of Conduct, we encourage you to still report it.

Does that include events before acceptance of that code?

@CasualPokePlayer
Copy link
Member Author

using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account

Do we have those?

I suppose adelikat's email would be the closest to an official project e-mail address, but overall not really. We don't have any official social media accounts either. Although I suppose these are more examples and are things that could in theory become reality.

If you are unsure whether an incident is a violation, or whether the space where the incident took place is covered by our Code of Conduct, we encourage you to still report it.

Does that include events before acceptance of that code?

I wouldn't be so sure, which I would hope discussion on this PR would have that be decided. Personally, I would think it would be best to have it somewhat "grandfathered" or so any events beforehand should be given more as a warning / thinner ice for those people.

@zeromus
Copy link
Contributor

zeromus commented Jan 21, 2023

Hahaha I appreciate your courtesy in including me in the list of potential vetoes. Count me as an actual veto.

@adelikat
Copy link
Contributor

For the record, I agree with the assessment of #3172 and think behavior needs to be addressed. I also think a code of conduct is a good idea, if everyone would be willing to agree with this and treat it seriously.

An important issue though is that my email that's mention no longer exists and likely won't ever exist (I'll have to figure something out for the tasvideos repo, but that's not a relevant problem here)

@vadosnaprimer
Copy link
Contributor

vadosnaprimer commented Jan 21, 2023

Regarding personal approval/agreement to the code, I don't like to speak in copypaste but I'm ready to follow the suggested thing.

@YoshiRulz
Copy link
Member

YoshiRulz commented Jan 22, 2023

snipped edit: pinged adelikat on Discord instead


To explain my downvote: I believe such community interaction policies aren't useful unless the project has 100 devs and an HR team. Also, the proposal as it stands implies the existence of a governance structure that we just don't have (yet)—decisions are made by informal consensus and infra/secrets/"hiring" are managed by whoever is available and willing.

@CasualPokePlayer
Copy link
Member Author

These kinds of policies would mostly just apply to regular developers, who currently are ones who have pushed to the repo "recently" (perhaps this access should be more restricted?). Optimally the governance structure would ultimately be the org "owners" (adelikat / zeromus / feos), but given zeromus' reply I suppose that wouldn't work out :(

@zeromus
Copy link
Contributor

zeromus commented Jan 22, 2023

Run through some scenarios of how this would play out in your head. It's almost comical. The lords of the place aren't administering justice, so the contributors tweet about it, crash the palace, run them out of town on a rail, and take up administrative duties?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants