From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id CCvYJmP8r2DH0AAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:09:07 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id qJiNImP8r2B0DAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:09:07 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5038CEE0F for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:09:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55652 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMJW-00053d-B1 for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:09:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34410) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMJS-00053Q-Oi for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:09:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41315) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMJS-0005Kj-HD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:09:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMJS-0001ew-Ab for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:09:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 20:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16221460836306 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 20:09:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 20:08:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52861 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMIU-0001dd-KP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:08:02 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:51384) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMIS-0001dE-RH for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:08:01 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BA1527BC78; Thu, 27 May 2021 21:08:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 954d37c7; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:07:59 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:07:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1622146147; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:resent-cc:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references: list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=pXxVv6KqHjHbaxKYwHIZIxj/4XdM6UZB367NNNqAQC4=; b=r0Gc4cnweqvqAwDue19d3cbs6+5Qfvqe4QAEqzg3GqOamFzA3f50Lg4jb9GIwZ5HULXeKr nwTIP5lzthgxLfNJ5BXLfs9gb9e0j2FSV2DvgwXV96sCm4iHvagiRDo3EALe2dtlOoSVDP lGAJvxXzGng3cNsUR//SO0PNlFQcaGgzNOs5kHZ6ZKZJcH0fS51DWX+5Tg2TwqjM85AuB3 NYyf/qWz1i+LjmI/BPa0pyRDDhr7zpnhiXB59XutnHYNxicoHWy6BlKSGGZzufMZLiG48A OLc+0my7IuV068iqNZYY69Cwqlq39pbwcJ9TaC0+HYHEMnPiHwks+Ik+UiFgwg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1622146147; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=rh39W5SuKmSwAVDivyZS2ZIP/H/0y7Qxsj7ZOBRGWytG10FjbE9OCwQClqKwpS6zWCyuas 8jxhaCKhA93kJy0/bTiXj+sJH7CX6tBVorZEQnPEy2d4KLNNKz/tLVeOyXps7A2mOAKnsZ bmjcyUlH3wG3NNukmAgZ1mKtMuyaJRxERSraUR2wSTee1BsaU5ebuab0b1MGJstK5VdMsc 0ozsxLXvQUfpS7NC9M9wJXs+VvbBOOdMRkqaozoYHR8CXmggxNXRCIgfBQBJqOOLtS3Wfm GnfUrj6WJ/wtj1a2SVR0jcai3YNnsHlKJ+S8uYuCFJvHdWpTtqrgK4vtaH3dRQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.53 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 5038CEE0F X-Spam-Score: -4.53 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: hWIEtZ4Mjq7F --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Revocation): Expound. > --- > doc/contributing.texi | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi > index 8308551261..ec649c8e13 100644 > --- a/doc/contributing.texi > +++ b/doc/contributing.texi > @@ -1444,6 +1444,27 @@ key removed from @file{.guix-authorizations} after= 12 months of > inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the > maintainers, without going through the vouching process. > > +Maintainers@footnote{See @uref{https://guix.gnu.org/en/about} for the > +current list of maintainers. You can email them privately at > +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}.} may also revoke an individual's > +commit rights, as a last resort, if cooperation with the rest of the > +community has caused too much friction---even within the bounds of the > +project's code of conduct (@pxref{Contributing}). They would only do so > +after public or private discussion with the individual and a clear > +notice. Examples of behavior that hinders cooperation and could lead to > +such a decision include: > + > +@itemize > +@item repeated violation of the commit policy stated above; > +@item repeated failure to take peer criticism into account; > +@item breaching trust through a series of grave incidents. > +@end itemize > + > +When maintainers resort to such a decision, they notify developers on > +@email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}; inquiries may be sent to > +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}. Depending on the situation, the > +individual may still be welcome to contribute. > + > @subsection Helping Out > > One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not Since the project code of conduct sets out behavioural standards, including mandating "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism" and "Showing empathy towards other community members", I think that combined with "following the relevant processes" already covers what you're setting out here? I was shocked by [1], which from memory is the first time a technical measure has been used to push a contributor away from the project (at least that's my interpretation of the effect/intent). I think the future use of revoking individuals commit access would be good to discuss. 1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-04/msg00489.html In abstract, in my opinion, I can only think of three scenarios for removing someones commit access when they're actively using it: =2D Clear violation of the code of conduct I don't think it's helpful to set out stuff about conduct in other places, particularly bits about unacceptable conduct. If the code of conduct is wrong or not sufficient, it should be revised. =2D Suspected malicious intent Like they didn't just introduce some reference to some dodgy release tarball for a package, but it seems like this could have been done intentionally. =2D Process problem for giving out commit access There's a process and people involved, so it's fair to say that problems can occur. Obviously it's not ideal, but if the process wasn't followed correctly, or if it's been updated and in hindsight different decisions would have been made, I think that's reason enough to apologise, and remove someones commit access. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmCv/B1fFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfADg//ZyDdxgEMFtb4gPwTBg+poPMs9UtPffHD UjvUxLE/tFAVc2XmNbb+y39pvRzoKIvv+LSNyKp+cYHP+7cmZYic4skrrKqqyWG5 vVlxqrLoH5W3WLAofP/mU3WlSuoN3auCzFZbJ4nmL38YL3kzv0T4lHeT2hGH7+fK +6GeZ6GKZposh4UpABb2M3Q6FRnnIqRlIxHgnG9hg3SKtNF4zPobTeVbxepu5qsx vXXTeF2XHVTL/P3LyT+iQHXtF8gNJXbBJ4HI8sNhq4FYV76hNtOMIJntxf5UyaH7 oFs3D8tzHTtXU2r7/PS7SM/VluusUsD3fvB8gDdQbtYnxT64SZYQ9TjTGmCxXkCV Fptn/rJJPSlRHiMniDUu6yCEj/I+ks42ytVusP1hsqHMMRW6iTdVThh22JWnYkNj 2Dcqp1UTYpaWkQIp5BS2FLU0J+PfAxGoX5BWSuNKfJfOg+MznYVB1F2KVBD/w2p0 QmyYfFgFu3azP9E4ENNkCInqg0MDBbBh+Ih2W2YlC6jYY4qA3bC08dc9PNMdneVI mWCHtKkHqnRFEZHT6ysvt9mYAhPcqmv+U+hFPFTasEqhku2d/2YwHV5BaLVY5Gum cpqWrVfh+oN3a7KuoHAxOwAv6ZJfxHkaJbx16zwhHfS036lPpTI6RaOLEudL9nJM qSJ8i/fwYqI= =W42X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--