toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Agree with Aeva and others’ comments. The community should participate in defining the CoC, and be part of selecting the people responsible for representing them in maintaining the CoC.
And, I struggle to understand defining a CoC committee that isn’t inclusive and which prioritizes representation. That seems wholly antithetical to the purpose of a CoC and the values of the foundation.
On 12 Jun 2022, at 12:16 pm, Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:
Perhaps we can separate out participation from acceptance?
I don’t feel comfortable with a community code of conduct not including the community, but also think many of us will acknowledge that some group of people need to be responsible for reviewing, accepting and merging changes.
I recommend treating it like any other open source project. Keep the code public in git, hold public reviews, and merge changes over time after discussing and general acceptance.
+1 to the concerns which Stephen and Josh have articulated. There were several other folks attending the BoF in Valencia who have subject expertise and volunteered to help -- but who have been excluded by this framework.
I have been leading a lot of the work on the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee's evolution since 2019, and have continued to support up-leveling of policy changes even after my term ended. Particularly given the clarification to this election process, it is evident that I am being excluded from this WG -- even though it is chartered to continue my work. For context, I am both a Board Alternate and an Emeritus k8s CoCC member.
So. What is the goal of a representational Working Group that excludes the domain experts?
As this committee is currently structured, I do not feel that my participation in it would be productive.