My personal opinion is twofold:
* The file shouldn't be mandatory because all policies should (and do)
apply automatically, there should be no magic spell to enable them on a
case by case basis. CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md is mostly a GitHub convention that
allows that site to indicate CoC terms in its interface.
* However, users who disagree with the rules of using our resources
shouldn't be using them. If you're using Gerrit/Phabricator/wikis/lists/etc,
you're bound by our community's rules as far as interactions there go. Your
personal interactions related to these extensions are kinda gray area,
however it's important to remember that these don't just happen out of
nothing. For example, if someone asks you a question related to your
extension, this is probably because they've found it on
and
downloaded it from our Git or ExtensionDistributor. Therefore, while we
don't want to play thought police we at the same time can't pretend we
don't care about them non-private aspects.
That being said, which parts of the CoC do you have a problem with?
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Yaron Koren <yaron(a)wikiworks.com> wrote:
Hi,
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md is a file that was added to most MediaWiki extensions
almost exactly a year ago. It reads, in full:
"The development of this software is covered by a [Code of Conduct](
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct)."
This file was added on the grounds that "Now that we have a Code of Conduct
we need to advertise it." You can see the Phabricator task for adding the
file everywhere, including a lot of debate over whether it's a good idea,
here:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T165540
I removed these files from all my extension directories pretty soon after
they were added, on the grounds that I just think it's false information -
the development of my extensions happens mostly on my and others' laptops,
in private emails and so forth - not "Wikimedia spaces", and thus not
covered by the Code of Conduct, according to the CoC. Some corporate
person, for example, downloading my software, could see that file and think
that they're bound by the Code of Conduct when sending me a patch, when in
fact (for better or worse) they're not.
That's how it went until two days ago, when Antoine Musso submitted a patch
for my Site Settings extension (I don't know why that one specifically),
re-adding the file. I rejected the patch, on the same grounds as before,
but another developer, Chad Horohoe, overrode me and merged it in. That led
to a discussion featuring Antoine, Chad, a few other WMF developers, and
me, which you can find here:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/437555/
Some of the (unbelievable) highlights:
- From Antoine: "Well then can we just archive this repository please?"
- From Chad: "Yeah no that's not how it works. If it's being hosted on
gerrit.wikimedia.org, it needs a CoC file. If you object to that, you can
find hosting elsewhere."
- From Amir Sarabadani: "Having CoC removed seems violation of CoC itself."
That last one is interesting, because the Code of Conduct doesn't mention
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at all. Which I would have thought Amir would know,
given that he's now a member of the "Code of Conduct Committee". (!)
Actually, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md isn't really mentioned anywhere - it was never
voted on, and I don't believe it was even a directive from WMF management.
As far as I know, this was the work of a few solitary (can I say "rogue"?)
WMF developers who happen to have the ability to modify all the
repositories - and, I guess, are into advertising.
Now, we could talk about whether the CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file is a good idea
- or whether it's even accurate - but I'd rather talk about the most
pressing issue, which is that a few developers have seemingly threatened to
delete my extensions from the Wikimedia Git repository.
That leads me to a few questions:
- Do developers like Chad Horohoe have the right to delete my extensions
from the repository? (I'm guessing they have the ability.)
- Is CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md now really mandatory?
- Is there some kind of chain of command, or process, for determining these
things, or are we in sort of a Wild West situation where whoever has the
ability to modify or delete other people's extensions can do so without
consequences?
Any thoughts or insight on these questions are welcome. There are some
disturbing implications to that thread, that I'd like to see resolved.
-Yaron
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l