From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id KCUEIpElsmAQfgAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 13:29:21 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id cAtOHZElsmAUTgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 11:29:21 +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 2F219193A4 for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 13:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51738 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9c-000216-9i for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:29:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9L-00020s-RF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:29:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44676) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9K-00086f-KI for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:29:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9K-0005N8-HT for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:29:02 -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: Sat, 29 May 2021 11:29:02 +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=B48696.162228773620638 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 11:29:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 11:28:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56222 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9E-0005Mo-CE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:28:56 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:52724) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9C-0005Me-BQ for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:28:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F99427BC78; Sat, 29 May 2021 12:28:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0d8a2f96; Sat, 29 May 2021 11:28:52 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 12:28:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87sg25g4ni.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=1622287761; 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=x4PQTLandgtSRd6jXotJv6ZZ+gGRj7HGcM2X36uGiAY=; b=RpRLdOqLpSR4sLdLq1usiaUg+rlF/AgR7wNlC6rY/yf8pfG4r1hPq/kz2oOs5dmbjMzqdY L/rkZ6mmmKfARbGLcdEtOfQ7FQMOF1+M83J0gKlp1Yl2BDCEEZKW2oo9MwLueglw6a6+/D whjMyo/bIgm2RxZuO+HS124seCRBv0+eu+Vu9S5y2zib59BHBuAEgJmbd1poytETQqy7Zp XXNMK89r64/7pMPe2ShybOG9aShBETTvuIO2++HXk0JTZVaXom6IGRsIXMzKjwDuOpF1B6 jBqYN3xzI4NeR/T0OIivV90NsZ09jX7QUBYTnx3ZQovk6rHVp2QxflYAtkoTeQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1622287761; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=iDE1kCrEhiQ1W5qEDwT71mGPTYhlqZeiWEUXxHtLzW97WwC3jeZ6hJA1jB4pa26orLH/P0 Gatq5rkc/qJ5mqo1iGR9SLgFqZNhFhdBoXv0NjcvfUOX5Wwqgt5CJ2OckrLzYud1byE0RX BpqQAd17pPpIhfroPcwT6xR/iAe/2GDWoTBnDeGZ9Gnm3qp3EbMXLXaPCDgRBCEpfD5A0B DQh9DtpxE97PV6PPhA3G41YODTZ9nyrmKfD8ZASideLfzu2UZlXcwE23aCnwoszho7p2WK c5Xyd7iv9oiqtBXfvQHQ+pS2vo/K7zCSsk5r/+jFZ903vgEVI2ZkGNdiOpK+mQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; 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-Spam-Score: -3.02 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: 2F219193A4 X-Spam-Score: -3.02 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: zay8jsYaWzjZ --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > 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 graceful= ly accepting > constructive criticism; it merely gives it as an example of expected > behavior. Yeah, maybe you're right. While there's a pledge regarding harassment, and the example behaviours are given in a section titled "Standards", the example behaviours are called that, examples. >> 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. I'd like to say that the code of conduct should encapsulate community expectations, but it does seem just to set out a strong position on harassment, and I would like to think that the community expectations are more than just making sure people feel that they're not being harassed. Is your intent here for "community expectations" to be/remain abstract, or for them to be explicitly set out somewhere? >> - 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 int= ent is to > describe a situation where the individual and other committers no longer > trust each other, there=E2=80=99s no judgment involved. I think the "who" here would be the people looking at removing someones commit access. I like this framing because it's more specific than "breaching trust through a series of grave incidents". Do you have other things in mind that this third point as you put it would cover? >> - 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. My point here is just that I think it's reasonable to remove someones commit access if it was effectively given out in error (because the process wasn't followed properly, or has been since revised). --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmCyJXFfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfoXw/+OQWv8R3CjNHO3tOfhbcAjttGd2+DUAGK 9t+RdLEDQRtAhDC2TYv/+1iFcmEnTzKmSo0M1ea8wg/gt687nJ8qWE/2fJUstt/B FiHk7G1Oj31uDWIADcMQ5YHvcdNz8SW9CG6YN6xHP3j2HEmE4yWUo3+VihuvOUHL KqTUQvd1lZzF6IvubnlyBmqcE5As2R2qBUgM9462F/Dy+CT6ok9Rlh/dUjVRaCnJ iqVdVBPUrp7UcG+ZqJKEgkWTcgC1eihIBfzDS0n96ozu9/Yz7XuF7kqKOuLglsaz DR78tDVwlSk26pOxwwJbxvYaq7ZRsiGzujDVAUktHvZ7FS0r28imzF7Nq5PmJTJU BnO2GVJPxZrSVgWgGBrQJKaxzrUSnmA6favoJSmlKNFJQlSWSpFOKYnRkjFViOV1 u/e0IuLDc3e63U0soaA3nBYnt/j17foN/s7bs3CbZH3QoSGYMmEHGZCw88RAqtqq exJUE7eq10Leq05EdctGtrp7PspS4JappsLh2fL0zDNrLHVk3JWKUrprSY15kV6H XWMaIhBxXCaUXVhTShLZjMoNo9ZxFOyufPugofQzx1FhiBDNPVWroRxkJ2aDHEue 67o8YYtQgeVfdIIK7NUQPx1iKQXGZtvEzF3Z1/CY8JThq6pKRTaFoSvBlQx+E+Q9 012iH8cplCk= =4pVG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--