Ubuntu Code of Conduct: omissions and suggestions

Elizabeth K. Joseph lyz at ubuntu.com
Thu Apr 21 23:30:14 UTC 2016

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Elizabeth K. Joseph wrote on 07/04/16 18:49:
>> This may be an interesting one to dig into, but I'm not sure how I
>> feel about it. I worry that giving examples can provide a framework
>> that people feel they can wiggle out of. But again, I'm not one of
>> the experts, so there may be a great deal of value here.
> The extremely popular Contributor Covenant starts with five “Examples
> of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment” and
> five “Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants”. It’s clear
> that they’re just examples, not an exhaustive list.
> <http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/>

Great link. While preparing for the OpenStack Summit next week I also
noticed the ones they have for the summit which outlines what
constitutes harassment:

So it looks like it is a very common thing now that we should be looking into.

>>> 2.  No reporting instructions with contact information. This is
>>> perhaps the most glaring omission (and what motivated me to write
>>> today).
>> This is a good point. I was very vocal[0] back when we had in
>> person UDS that various types of contact information was made
>> available on the anti-harassment page for the event, but I never
>> followed through in our written document online. I think adding a
>> section about contacting the CC would be great.
> I’ve found a “Reporting a Community Problem” page on the wiki, but it
> was last updated in December 2009. Is it still accurate?
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReportingCommunityProblems>

Actually, that's awful. AFAIK no one has ever used the bug tracker for
this and asking people to do that is a bit insensitive, especially
considering the circumstances.

We should update it with the email contact information of the
community council that will go to humans on a private mailing list,
maybe even link to https://launchpad.net/~communitycouncil/+mugshots
so people can see their smiling human faces :)

>>> 3.  No information about enforcement. Version 1.0 said “the
>>> Ubuntu Community Council will arbitrate in any dispute”, with
>>> 1.1 adding “Ubuntu governance bodies”, but 2.0 removed both of
>>> these. <https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct> Matthew Garrett made
>>> a start on defining the enforcement process in 2007, but it
>>> didn’t go anywhere.
>>> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodeOfConductDisputeResolution> The
>>> current process may be precise and well-known to the Community
>>> team, but defining it in the Code itself would be much more
>>> reassuring to potential reporters.
>> Good point, this should be addressed.
> So … What is the current process? The above page says “a discussion
> will occur in the bug report to work towards a solution”, but it gives
> no clue of who will be involved, how quickly, how publicly/privately,
> or what the possible outcomes may be.

Every incident is different, but it generally boils down to:

Try to resolve yourself while abiding to the CoC (assume good
intentions, be polite, get another opinion)

Contact the Community Council via email

Community Council will take steps to resolve the issue one-on-one or
in a meeting with the involved parties, as appropriate.

A path forward will be decided from there as a result of that
interaction to resolve the report.

...please don't copy these steps into the wiki, it's a draft! :)

>> ...
>>> 5.  Needless bureaucracy of “signing” the Code
>> This has been something we've been concerned about for years. I
>> believe the main holdup was that it's all done in Launchpad and
>> Launchpad has been feature frozen for years, essentially bounding
>> us to use what we had with GPG signatures, and having few other
>> options.
>> My hope is that we can finally find a solution so we can move past
>> this, perhaps even moving the process off of Launchpad if that
>> continues to be a blocker.
>> ...
> Would anything bad happen if we removed the requirement to sign the
> Code for any reason, and expected everyone to follow it regardless?

I was so head-in-the-sand about the fact that we have this signing
mechanism that I didn't realize that we probably don't actually need
people to. I don't know of any communities off the top of my head that
have a similar signing procedure.

As Michael says, everyone who works in our community  is expected to
follow it regardless of whether they signed or not.

His example of requiring it for PPAs is interesting, we should look
into why that requirement exists. Maybe we can assume package
maintainers are tech savvy enough to use GPG anyway and keep the
signing mechanism in Launchpad for things like that.

Elizabeth Krumbach Joseph || Lyz || pleia2

More information about the Ubuntu-community-team mailing list