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.

Sign up for GitHub

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 code of conduct minimal neutral guarantees #213

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

Add code of conduct minimal neutral guarantees #213

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
2dcb094
Add code of conduct minimal neutral guarantees
ariard Jul 13, 2023
f502984
Request code of conduct members 50 commits / 2y exp
ariard Jul 14, 2023
fa82902
Remove the formality and extend to 3y
ariard Jul 14, 2023
244e421
Define deadlock, staggered approach and PoW for active contributors
ariard Jul 25, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 9 additions & 0 deletions docs/code_of_conduct.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -20,13 +20,22 @@ Private or public harassment of any kind will not be tolerated. Since harassment

Additionally, spam and other content which disrupts or prevents LDK contributors from working on LDK is not acceptable.

In case of a concrete issue that raises a deadlock about the application of the code of conduct, 2 additional members should be selected by consensus of the code of conduct team from the community of
active LDK contributors to join the team in its decision-making process to adjudicate the case. The decision of the majority of the 5 members is binding.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does the "normal" CoC always consist of 3 members? What would an example of a deadlock look like here?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes “normal” CoC currently consists of 3 members. Note latest modification proposes to bump the number to 5 at next nomination in 2025 (for the staggered approach).

Latest changes introduces the definition of a deadlock, which is just when there is no unanimity between the 3 CoC members on the decision to take and therefore bumping to 5 allow to unlock the situation, hopefully. So in practice a deadlock can be any material event defined as unacceptable behavior, it’s just when there is no formal unanimity in the decision-making process.

## The Code of Conduct Team

A small team of LDK contributors has volunteered to enforce the LDK Code of Conduct. If you feel like a community member has engaged in inappropriate behavior, please don't hesitate to contact one of the following LDK contributors via email or on Discord:
* Matt Corallo - ldkcocpoc on mattcorallo.com
* Val Wallace - vwallace on protonmail.com
* Devrandom - devrandom99 on proton.me

The Code of Conduct team should be renew every 2 years with a transparent nomination process opened to the whole community of active LDK contributors.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One of the biggest ways in euch codes of Conduct have gone wrong is when they're selected out of individuals who are super interested in being on the code of conduct committee. This lends itself to such a committee trying to leverage its power to accomplish its goals, rather than addressing issues only as they arise.

Trying to force a formal selection process into a CoC committee naturally results in people vying for a position on it, which I think is a very bad outcome.

Copy link
Author

@ariard ariard Jul 14, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One of the biggest ways in euch codes of Conduct have gone wrong is when they're selected out of individuals who are super interested in being on the code of conduct committee

I fully agree and I think committee members should be selected among technical contributors to maintain the alignment with the community, rather than their own goal.

Proposing the following rule to be part of the committee:

Code of conduct team members should have realized at least 50 code commits
in the main LDK git tree and the first commit should have been merged more than
2 years at the date of nomination.

50 code commits is around the current bar than the number of commits by the committee member with the lowest number of commits (Devrandom - 67 if i’m using git correctly) and the 2 years rule request than someone has been around the project for long enough to be familiar with the social norms of the communication space.

The requirement of a technical proof-of-work also ensure it stays a project maintained by developers for developers, and not a bureaucracy talking about stupid trademarks issues like what is happening with Rust.

There is another pitfall that I think we should avoid it’s when people are no more technically active in the project, yet still occupying a janitorial role like a CoC committee member. A time-bounded nomination process allow those people to leave their roles smoothly and in a transparent fashion for the community. Nothing worst than “elected-for-life” roles.

I like the idea than to exercise a role you must be technically active, it’s okay to not do review and land code for few months though if after one or maybe two years you’re no more active, it’s better for everyone to transmit roles. It’s kinda FOSS spirit imho.

Removed the mention of a formal selection process (“Nomination process should be defined in its ulterior document”), I think proposing people in an open fashion on usual communication channels like we’re doing on Core-side for admin roles, sounds good enough to me.


The next nomination should happen in December 2024. Current Code of conduct team members can be reconducted in their roles.

Nomination process should be defined in its ulterior document.

## The Code of Conduct Team’s Responsibilities

Team members are tasked with responding to reports within 24 hours. They will review each incident and determine, to the best of their ability:
Expand Down