The repository is missing a code of conduct #7520
Conversation
Build PASSEDStarted: 2017-12-07 21:44:53 View more information about this build on: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAICT, most other repos just put CoC information in CONTRIBUTING.md. I'd also like a link to https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#Procedures.
|
I'm actually trying to follow the recommendation from GitHub. The .md file is suggested by the Insights/Community tab. |
|
This is great to see, but I wonder if the project should have its own CoC and enforcement, since it's not exclusively a W3C project.
It's not clear how this statement applies to this project, which involves folks who could be considered to be outside that community by some. It also doesn't mention GitHub/IRC. |
|
(And yeah, when adopted we should link this from the README and the docs too.) |
|
I see your point. We could adopt one from other open source projects. The one from RUST, reused/cited by several projects including WHATWG seems fine to me. We'll still need to provide an incident handling path however. We could create a GH team and list moderators there. |
|
Yeah, we had a chat on the IRC channel about the lack of formalized governance and you really need something for cases like this. |
|
as a side, we'll need to look at the LICENSE.md and figure out how to evolve it. |
This is an initial reboot on the code of conduct.
|
In RFC 17 - Code of Conduct, the newly-formed WPT Core Team is considering this issue. |
|
I merged #18950 into this branch. The branch is still very far behind so it can't trigger CI correctly, will merge in master to fix that. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is still blocked on web-platform-tests/rfcs#17 anyway; r- because we need that to pass.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is blocked by web-platform-tests/rfcs#54 landing, but I've reviewed it, so making that explicit.
|
Closing in favor of the new PR, #23762 |
No description provided.