[GH-ISSUE #571] Request clarity on this site's code of conduct. #6406

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2026-06-17T05:10:30-05:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:30 -05:00

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.

Originally created by @jwdonahue on GitHub (Jun 9, 2020). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/571 [This reply](https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/536#issuecomment-640972146) to [this thread](https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/536#issue-499406637), prompted [this reply](https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/536#issuecomment-641118920) 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.

GiteaMirror closed this issue

2026-06-17 05:10:30 -05:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:31 -05:00

@indirect commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):

The code of conduct explicitly requests:

Using welcoming and inclusive language
Focusing on what is best for the community
Showing empathy towards other community members

The code of conduct explicitly forbids:

insulting/derogatory comments
public or private harassment
other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

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.

@indirect commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020): The code of conduct explicitly requests: - Using welcoming and inclusive language - Focusing on what is best for the community - Showing empathy towards other community members The code of conduct explicitly forbids: - insulting/derogatory comments - public or private harassment - other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting 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.

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:31 -05:00

@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):

Bye!

@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020): Bye!

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:32 -05:00

@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:

Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

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.

@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: > Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior. 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.

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:32 -05:00

@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:

Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include:
Using welcoming and inclusive language
Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
Focusing on what is best for the community
Showing empathy towards other community members

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.

@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](https://github.com/semver/semver/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) 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: > Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include: > Using welcoming and inclusive language > Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > Focusing on what is best for the community > Showing empathy towards other community members 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.

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:33 -05:00

@segiddins commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):

And I would add that had you all been dong the job you volunteered for, we would not be having this discussion.

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.

@segiddins commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020): > And I would add that had you all been dong the job you volunteered for, we would not be having this discussion. 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.

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:33 -05:00

@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.

@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.

GiteaMirror commented

2026-06-17 05:10:33 -05:00

@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:

If you continue in this manner, expect a ban from this GitHub organization's repositories. Instead, please apologize and try to post with more empathy in the future.

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:

Since you decided to defend your violation instead of apologizing and agreeing to follow the CoC in the future, I am awarding you a one week 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.

@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: > If you continue in this manner, expect a ban from this GitHub organization's repositories. Instead, please apologize and try to post with more empathy in the future. 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: > Since you decided to defend your violation instead of apologizing and agreeing to follow the CoC in the future, I am awarding you a one week 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.

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/semver#6406