Again, I’m not a native speaker, but a checkbox with I am aware of the CoC (which I would have no problem with) sounds quite different to I agree to follow the CoC.
I’m not following. What’s wrong with not liking a CoC?
The checkbox was removed on setuptools by Jason so there is no longer any wording to change.
But FYI in case you missed it (and again it’s quite small which is why I screenshoted it above) the GitHub UI itself instruct users to follow the CoC when posting a new issue.
As all GitHub users have agreed to the GitHub Terms of Service I would assume this takes precedent over any additional wording an individual project puts in their issue form.
I was paraphrasing a bit too much. Being aware of the CoC and that it applies to a repository implies you also agree to follow it.
Technically there’s nothing wrong with disliking a CoC. But people who dislike a CoC are much more likely to not adhere to one either, and that’s problematic.
2 Likes
Based on the following, it sounds like there are (at least) three versions of the statement to distinguish between.
A. I am aware of the CoC. This is essentially useless, it doesn’t matter that someone acknowledges that the CoC exists. If it included something like “I am aware of the specific terms of the CoC”, maybe there would be a purpose, but in my opinion it’s still pretty useless. Of course raising awareness of the CoC is a good thing, but it seems like what’s actually wanted here is for the community to abide by it, not just know it exists.
B. I agree to follow the CoC. This is really what the community wants people to abide by IMO. We care about people’s words and actions, not their personal thoughts.
C. I agree with the CoC. This is too strong a statement to require people to make, and doesn’t actually even ask people to follow the CoC. I mean, there are lots of principles I agree with that I often fail to live by. And there are lots of rules I have agreed to live by that I don’t actually think are the best rules to have. And it can be a good idea to try to change those rules, so I would never want to sign a statement saying that I agree with all the rules I follow.
If someone won’t agree to follow a community’s CoC, then that does seem equivalent to declaring that they expect to violate it, or at the very least, if they find themselves violating it unexpectedly, they won’t try to stop themselves or change their actions. Considering what’s in this particular community’s CoC (no doxing, no sexual harassment, no incitement of violence, etc.), in my opinion that would be a highly unacceptable outcome.
That said - I don’t necessarily think it needs to be a checkbox either. I agree with @jaraco’s concern about removing friction from the process. I think adding verbiage like “by filing this report, you are participating in this community; please be prepared to follow our code of conduct” or something like that.
I’m not exactly sure what the current verbiage about “contributions to this repository should follow its code of conduct” really means though - I usually think of “contributions to a repository” as code or documentation contributions, as in the sense of “people who make contributions to a repository must assign copyright to Organization X”.
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here about this community issue, thanks everyone for their participation.
6 Likes
GitHub’s “About Repositories” includes discussion and management of a project’s files is also part of the repository:
Further the GitHub community guidelines also states “issues” as part of the repository under “What if something or someone offends you?” section: GitHub Community Guidelines - GitHub Docs
Moderate Comments - If you have write-access privileges for a repository, you can edit, delete, or hide anyone’s comments on commits, pull requests, and issues.
I would be most comfortable about checked a box beside
B. I agree to follow the CoC
.
1 Like