couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CouchDB Developer Code of Conduct
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:27:40 GMT

My thinking here is modelled on a typical HR policy. There are minor
offences and major offences. Minor ones are met with warnings, and
major ones are met with summary dismissal.

If a PMC member unambiguously, and seriously, acts against the best
interests of the project, then I think it is fitting to remove that
person from the PMC. No warnings, no time-outs.

Everything is reversible. If the person reforms, then we may want to
invite the back. But I hardly think it's likely.

In any case, this whole thing would be decided via voting. So I'm not
worried about the rules being applied irresponsibly.

The way I imagine it working is that, let's say I spot some behaviour
that violates our CoC, I would start a vote on the private@ list with
the subject "[VOTE] Formal warning for Ash Smith" and I would
highlight the part of the CoC that had been violated. Other members of
the PMC would vote in private, lending +1 or -1 votes. If the vote
passes, I would issue a formal warning on behalf of the project.

Warnings would be done in private, and there would be a chance to
appeal (which would be, again, voted on). I think it's a good idea to
post a note to the relevant thread indicating that the community
member received a warning for the behaviour.

Instead of a third warning, we'd issue a time-out. Again decided on by
vote. This person would be removed from the mailing list, IRC, or
JIRA. Whatever makes sense in context. Perhaps all of them at once.

Repeated time-outs would, I guess, just mean that the time-outs get
longer each time. You could start with a day, a week, or whatever, and
go to a month, three months, six months, and so on.

The only thing left to decide is what to do about commit bits and PMC
membership. I think if a committer is put on time-out a second or
third time, we ought to be thinking about removing that person from
the PMC or committership.

On 29 April 2014 14:15, Jason Smith <> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Mike Rhodes <>wrote:
>> On 29 April 2014 11:18, Jason Smith <> wrote:
>> > Rule: No profanity
>> >
>> > Secondly, this is only a suspicion, but I think profanity (and also cocky
>> > faux hatred), is a shibboleth indicating manhood and that we are in a
>> > men-only club. It's like a loud fart or belch, or scratching your groin.
>> > Men generally curb that behavior in mixed company. It reminds me of bulls
>> > locking horns to impress a mate. Maybe F-bombs and the anger it stands
>> for
>> > are scaring some women away from software. Could be wrong, though.
>> +1 to guidance against profanity, particularly casual. Crassness is
>> unpleasant.
>> -1 to casual sexism that women don't swear, fart or scratch their crotches.
>> I know you didn't mean harm, but this trap is too easy to fall into and is
>> relevant here.
> Well anyway I'm glad there's some momentum (if not yet consensus) to this
> idea. Thanks.

Noah Slater

View raw message