mirror of
https://github.com/semver/semver.git
synced 2026-07-10 19:50:47 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #571] Request clarity on this site's code of conduct. #3131
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/semver#3131
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @jwdonahue on GitHub (Jun 9, 2020).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/571
This reply to this thread, prompted this reply from a maintainer. I would really like to know specifically which rule(s) in the code of conduct were violated. I see no apparent violation.
Given that one of the precious few responses from the maintainers, in recent months, happens to include a rebuke, I think it's important that we clear this up right away.
@indirect commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
The code of conduct explicitly requests:
The code of conduct explicitly forbids:
The comment that you linked to is not welcoming or inclusive, does not focus on what is best for the community, does not show empathy towards other community members, includes multiple derogatory comments, explicitly at-mentions every maintainer on a hostile message, and is not appropriate for a professional setting.
In particular, the bits about "He will die of old age at some point" and "the first anniversary of it's submittal, or as it seems to be going, the second, or third anniversary?" are especially unnecessary and hostile to the volunteer maintainers.
As always, please follow the code of conduct when posting or otherwise interacting with this repository.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
Bye!
@jeme commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
@indirect I think this particular case was handled extremely poorly, and I am sorry that that calls you out...
I can understand that those particular sentences could be seen as not in line with the COC, however they are not in my eyes of a particular harmful nature. They were just not very constructive.
Calling out for an apology directly and when that was not received, issuing a temporary ban would certainly not be in line with the COC if you ask me... AS the COC states the following:
I don't think "Appropriate" or "Fair" action is the words I would describe for what was done here...
A warning would perhaps been in it's place. But this was taken to far... And I would encourage that the entire team would discuss this now, as in line with the COC.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
On second thought. Just in case the other maintainers missed this thread before @indirect closed it: @anangaur @dherman @isaacs @segiddins @steveklabnik, are you paying attention?
@runeimp 's comments may have been a bit stinging for some of you to hear, but none of them rise to the level of violating the COC and certainly don't deserve any punitive action. I do consider @indirect's comments and behavior to be a violation of the COC however. In particular:
What happened to "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism" in all of this? And demanding an apology was down-right condescending. I personally would have dropped the metaphorical hammer on him at that point, but @runeimp offered a calm explanation of his actions and left it at that.
And I would add that had you all been dong the job you volunteered for, we would not be having this discussion.
@segiddins commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
That’s an uncalled-for attack, and demonstrates that you really don’t have any empathy for the group of people maintaining the project in their spare time. This is not a “job”, and we certainly did not sign up to revive ad-hominem attacks.
That being said, I will refer you back to @indirect’s succinct summary of the Code of Conduct, and once against respectfully ask that those who wish to comment on issues abide by it.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
If a statement of fact can be twisted as a non-empathetic attack, then I am truly done here.
@indirect commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
Okay, now we've reached the point where I'm going to issue a CoC violation warning to @jwdonahue. Saying that it's the maintainers' fault they are getting harassed because they "aren't doing their jobs" is absolutely out of line, unprofessional, and a violation of the code of conduct. Next violation gets a 1 week ban.
@jeme the CoC explicitly states that the maintainers of this project will "clarify standards of acceptable behavior". That includes statements like like "that's not okay here", and "please apologize for violating the CoC, and follow it in the future". Those statements are me following and enforcing the code of conduct.
Violating the CoC does not produce a ban, it produces a warning. Doubling down on a violation in response to a warning produces a temporary ban. I explicitly spelled this out, "clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior", in my warning message:
When the response to my warning included no remorse or apology, and no commitment to follow the CoC in the future, I explicitly called out the doubling-down in my message announcing the ban:
This ticket has now become another upsetting distraction from the work of SemVer itself, so I'm going to lock it. If any other maintainers would like to chime in, feel free.