Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy document

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:07:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 30/03/21 15:02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > Consider someone is kicked out from another project for violation
> > of that project's CoC, that would also be considered a violation
> > under QEMU's CoC. This qualifier is explicitly stating that the CoC
> > violation in the other project has no bearing on whether that
> > person can now start participating in QEMU. I think that's a bad
> > mixed message we're sending there. It is especially poor if the
> > victim from the other project is also a QEMU contributor.
> 
> My wording is actually already broader than what is in the contributor
> covenant:
> 
>   This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces, and it also
>   applies when an individual is representing the project or its
>   community in public spaces. Examples of representing a project or
>   community include using an official project e-mail address, posting
>   via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
>   representative at an online or offline event.
> 
> That is, the Code of Conduct would not apply to someone saying "the QEMU
> SCSI maintainer rejected my patches, he is an idiot" on Twitter.  My
> proposal sought to find a middle ground, where that person could be
> reasonably considered to be "acting as a member of the project or its
> community".
> 
> > The wording Thomas' draft has
> > 
> >   In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may
> >   affect a person's ability to participate within them.
> > 
> > doesn't require QEMU to take action. It just set a statement
> > of intent that gives QEMU the freedom to evaluate whether it is
> > reasonable to take action to protect its contributors, should a
> > contributor wish to raise an issue that occurred outside QEMU.
> 
> There have been in the past cases of external people asking projects to ban
> contributors because of views they held on social media.  The Contributor
> Covenant initially included no limit to the application of the CoC and only
> added a limitation after the author herself was involved in such an
> episode[1][2].
> 
> I would prefer to avoid putting QEMU in that situation, and limit the
> applicability code of conduct as much as possible to conflicts within the
> community.
> 
> The Mozilla participation guidelines (2165 words :)) acknowledge that "it is
> possible for actions taken outside of Mozilla's online or in person spaces
> to have a deep impact on community health" but also admit that "this is an
> active topic in the diversity and inclusion realm"[3].
> 
> The Django code of conduct seems to be in the minority in having such a
> broad applicability, while the wording in the Contributor Covenant seems to
> be more informed by actual experience.

Fair enough, as I mentioned previously, I think it is better to go with
commonly accepted approach, than to have something unique to QEMU. So on
that basis, I'm fine with your suggestion


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|