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

Involuntarily leaving SC: Allow PM on forum #2393

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: devel
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mariolenz
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should change the process and allow to contact possibly inactive SC members via a private message on the forum.

After all, we've moved most (all?) discussions and votes to the forum. So we can assume that SC members are active there, can't we?

@mariolenz mariolenz requested a review from a team as a code owner February 4, 2025 18:06
@ansible-documentation-bot ansible-documentation-bot bot added the sc_approval This PR requires approval from the Ansible Community Steering Committee label Feb 4, 2025
@mariolenz mariolenz marked this pull request as draft February 4, 2025 18:09
@felixfontein felixfontein added backport-2.17 Automatically create a backport for the stable-2.17 branch backport-2.18 Automatically create a backport for the stable-2.18 branch labels Feb 4, 2025
@mariolenz
Copy link
Contributor Author

While we're at it, I think we should also allow discussing Ansible Community Code of Conduct violations via PM.

What do you think?

@gundalow
Copy link
Contributor

gundalow commented Feb 5, 2025

While we're at it, I think we should also allow discussing Ansible Community Code of Conduct

Maybe we move that to a separate discussion. Though I'd like to understand what (if anything) can be improved.

@mariolenz
Copy link
Contributor Author

recheck

@mariolenz
Copy link
Contributor Author

While we're at it, I think we should also allow discussing Ansible Community Code of Conduct

Maybe we move that to a separate discussion.

Sure, no problem: Revert "Allow CoC violations via PM"

Though I'd like to understand what (if anything) can be improved.

I'm not sure what you mean. Since most of the discussions take place on the forum, allowing to use the forum / PMs for this process instead of using emails and therefor a different communication channel sounds like a simplification (and therefor an improvement) to me. Or did I get you wrong?

@samccann
Copy link
Contributor

samccann commented Feb 5, 2025

Hi folks - before we merge, we'd need to understand how 'private' a forum DM is. As in can all forum Admins see it? Can forum moderators see it? I dunno the answer to either question but I'll try to dig them up.

@mariolenz
Copy link
Contributor Author

we'd need to understand how 'private' a forum DM is. As in can all forum Admins see it? Can forum moderators see it? I dunno the answer to either question but I'll try to dig them up.

How "private" is an email if you don't use E2E encryption? We don't require S/MIME or PGP for email communication as far as I know. So I should say that a PM is better because only the forum admins might see it. An unencrypted email is far less secure IMHO.

@gundalow
Copy link
Contributor

gundalow commented Feb 5, 2025

Though I'd like to understand what (if anything) can be improved.

I'm not sure what you mean. Since most of the discussions take place on the forum, allowing to use the forum / PMs for this process instead of using emails and therefor a different communication channel sounds like a simplification (and therefor an improvement) to me. Or did I get you wrong?

Regarding Code of Conduct. If we want to review that I'd prefer that to be done clearly and as a dedicated separate task.

@mariolenz mariolenz marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2025 18:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport-2.17 Automatically create a backport for the stable-2.17 branch backport-2.18 Automatically create a backport for the stable-2.18 branch sc_approval This PR requires approval from the Ansible Community Steering Committee
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants