Code of Conduct and Diversity Statement

[Pierre Neidhardt]

From: https://www.recurse.com/blog/83-michael-nielsen-joins-the-recurse-center-to-help-build-a-research-lab

To give some flavor for the types of work we’re excited by, here’s a
small sampling of things that inspire us: [...] Systems Software
Research is Irrelevant[1] [...]

I've read this paper (it's rather short) and as the title suggests, it
arguments over why there won't be anything new in research and that Unix
is "good enough".

This was 2000 and maybe there was nothing better, but in my opinion it
does not make those statements any less fallacious: Unix had issues
(people have written entire books[2] about it) and claiming to know to
where research is going to end is somewhat arrogant, isn't it?

And see, in 2008 Eelco Dolstra publishes the seminal paper "NixOS: A
Purely Functional Linux Distribution"[3], which proved Rob Pike awfully
wrong.

Anyways, saying all that because while Recurse looks great, it's sad
that their research initiative doesn't seem to believe in NixOS / GuixSD
:( Or did I get it wrong?

[1]: http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.html

[2]: http://web.mit.edu/%7Esimsong/www/ugh.pdf

[3]: https://nixos.org/~eelco/pubs/nixos-icfp2008-final.pdf

--
Pierre Neidhardt

What one fool can do, another can.
-- Ancient Simian Proverb

[Tonton]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Nils Gillmann]

Hi

Hi,

...

should we make the CoC more prominent or
somehow
inform about it better? For example by putting it or a link to it in
the topic
of the IRC channel, as it's own page on the website, if possible as
part of
the welcome message to the mailing lists, others?

Yes I think so. I like you proposals. I knew we had one and found it via the manual.

A second question is, the contributor covenant has evolved, should we
upgrade
ours from 1.3.0 to the current
[1.4.0](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct)?

This community does not really have any maintainers or formal leadership to my knowledge.
How to handle reporting in our case could be handled by here by vote appointing a person to handle such issues (for example as a mediator like in https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Conflict_Resolution)

Here's another group working on "Guidelines for Moderators of Coexistence".
Their document is well-written and now translated in 3 languages:

https://structure.pages.de/convivenza.en

Would like to say that this is probably the best informatics community
I've
been part of and the reason I'm bringing it up is to make a statement
that we
care, and to make it easier for outsiders and potential participants to
see
that this is in fact part of our backbone. I'm so often positively
surprised
by the quality of communication here.

I agree. Conflicts here seem rare and to my knowledge well handled when they do.
Cheers
Swedebugia

[Chris Marusich]

This community does not really have any maintainers or formal
leadership to my knowledge.
How to handle reporting in our case could be handled by here by vote
appointing a person to handle such issues (for example as a mediator
like in https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Conflict_Resolution)

GNU Guix does have some maintainers. Currently, they are Ludovic
CourtÚs and Ricardo Wurmus. This is mentioned here:

https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/about/

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Should we make the CoC more prominent or somehow inform about it
better? For example by putting it or a link to it in the topic of the
IRC channel, as it's own page on the website, if possible as part of
the welcome message to the mailing lists, others?

I think those are good ideas. I'd be curious to hear what Ludo and
Ricardo think.
We mention the Code of Conduct in the manual (see: "(guix)
Contributing"). However, you're right that it seems we don't
prominently mention it on the website.

Sure, perhaps we should mention it at the top of
<https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/contribute/> and/or link to
<https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Contributing.html>?

While we wait for Ludo and Ricardo to reply, perhaps you could submit a
patch that implements the changes you're suggesting?

That’d be great!

A second question is, the contributor covenant has evolved, should we upgrade
ours from 1.3.0 to the current
[1.4.0](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct)?

To help people understand what has changed going from 1.3.0 to 1.4, here
wdiff -n -w $'\033[30;41m' -x $'\033[0m' -y $'\033[30;42m' -z $'\033[0m' \
<(curl https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/code-of-conduct.txt) \
<(curl https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.txt) \
| less -R

As I see it, the new version is more clearly structured, clarifies the
wording in some places, and introduces a distinction between “project
team” and “project maintainers”. Perhaps we’d need to clarify what the
“project team” is in our case (?).

Apart from this, I think 1.4 follows the spirit of 1.3.0 and its
clarifications are welcome, so I’d be in favor of “upgrading”.

What do people think?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tonton!

Ludo’.

[Kei Kebreau]

Post by Ludovic Courtès
As I see it, the new version is more clearly structured, clarifies the
wording in some places, and introduces a distinction between “project
team” and “project maintainers”. Perhaps we’d need to clarify what the
“project team” is in our case (?).
Apart from this, I think 1.4 follows the spirit of 1.3.0 and its
clarifications are welcome, so I’d be in favor of “upgrading”.
What do people think?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tonton!
Ludo’.

I'm also in favor of the move to version 1.4.

[Clément Lassieur]

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès <***@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

Post by Ludovic Courtès
Apart from this, I think 1.4 follows the spirit of 1.3.0 and its
clarifications are welcome, so I’d be in favor of “upgrading”.
What do people think?

I like the 1.4 version because it adds those positive examples of
behavior, and because the examples in the first paragraph are alpha
sorted (age, body size...).

Clément