From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id SFoFJm8QsmAtWwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 11:59:11 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id OP6TIW8QsmD1EAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 09:59:11 +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 BA6C218E61 for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 11:59:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:38582 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvkL-0005Ij-F5 for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:59:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40766) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvkE-0005IW-IH for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:59:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44468) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvkE-00016Z-B2 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:59:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvkE-0002qV-9H for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:59:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 09:59:02 +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: Christopher Baines Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162228230310894 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 09:59:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 09:58:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56014 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjb-0002pe-Gh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47026) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjZ-0002pR-7o for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:22 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39806) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjT-0000ci-Vq; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:15 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40148 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjT-0004Km-MB; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:15 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 Prairial an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 11:58:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Thu, 27 May 2021 21:07:57 +0100") Message-ID: <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=1622282351; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: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=s2AsUKTDjEYJ0CkRidQE/kGd5PHAOLK9dU/DRcI1EMg=; b=F6DMUJR6+A3kjnA/E0qzDg7pjtiPkact1dqOFgwYw6vrTj7zgPd1yxiQaYO1yMl4Pf0xLL Cwx91G+tvOVzH4997BJKHd1WHiNm91lr8ebvI/Av2C37jC/R8USHfIGf5Ha4IcfQFVj8I3 NkX/dAXTRFKlmN3/Umqqxni/JCcFL2OxkSHf0Vl4Fo9wOs99Hqjb0BFiUUu4EWF0yXcmQF 0rSkFwUmOeH3RvSFmpugsy79RxQ/cUwiqHSS41LTRBWQY9+B98svO/Fc74fgdIefLmr/26 gQ/XVwWaL/tVjjvItIUgokRqc/9UJAklSGEz0eV3pAMVy7YKVOEyUrA0pv+Sqw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1622282351; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=qhno2ELC+JRPAB5r0WwOZB3U2vOKLs5k8gjMflE9W1GXyH9y7oVXhRiuUKcQ8btRNk0SkL w0OgU4fDzO5dNHkTz5QRY0WDVgSoEQ9KfndCqkshJIgODZoha5g/86rB0fSSlYK9lwfl6V 0hy87iq0xJuTVOR5AJx/QJhMkrA9BLwlNfu6ZbYiwRJWqFtTDJeOtfZmmKO7teyiqgqF2a tVGrGxMybOMn0WRaxqg04qFe54qf6+weqiNso91nOIx7P3KkqxBKIjpDm+7xeABv5Aa+By RJ5An2idEqqt9fh2aSi4yEgsfPmyHjwnDlk8ldNg3SoTELZvAI5uZ01395MJzg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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: -1.42 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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: BA6C218E61 X-Spam-Score: -1.42 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: PNFz9j+kAyun Christopher Baines skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> +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 [...] > 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? Note that the code of conduct does not =E2=80=9Cmandate=E2=80=9D gracefully= accepting constructive criticism; it merely gives it as an example of expected behavior. > 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 Yes, it was the first time; it was a tough decision for us co-maintainers because it was a last resort we were not prepared for. Part of the reason for this patch is to document this possibility so we all know what to expect. > In abstract, in my opinion, I can only think of three scenarios for > removing someones commit access when they're actively using it: > > - Clear violation of the code of conduct Yes, that=E2=80=99s already covered by the code of conduct. The section above is explicitly about cases where the individual did not violate the code of conduct (hence =E2=80=9Ceven within the bounds of the project's code of conduct=E2=80=9D in the text above), but instead broke community expectations. > - Suspected malicious intent Put this way, the question becomes who is suspecting that. Instead I wrote =E2=80=9Cbreaching trust=E2=80=9D in the bullet list above; the inten= t is to describe a situation where the individual and other committers no longer trust each other, there=E2=80=99s no judgment involved. > - Process problem for giving out commit access The process for giving commit access is already documented (info "(guix) Commit Access"); my intent here was not to change it. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.