Conversation
m-miedema
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good! The definition of active involvement in a project is especially helpful to have and I think the one you came up with is fair (although can maybe be clarified about whether meeting attendance and evidence of contributions are both necessary).
For the code of conduct, they seem in harmony with each other and as far as I can tell what we've written in the charter. However, we do need to decide on which reporting pathways to include. My suggestion is to report via the gmail or to any member of the steering committee. We could also consider whether the person reporting has any agency following reporting. For example, this person may wish to make a disclosure or express concern without necessarily triggering an enforcement response. I'd recommend exploring this in another issue/PR in the future.
Group discussion in SC meeting Co-authored-by: Stefano Moia <s.moia.research@gmail.com>
Discussed at the SC meeting June 3rd Co-authored-by: Stefano Moia <s.moia.research@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Stefano Moia <s.moia.research@gmail.com>
Closes #3
Closes #22
Summary
Hi all, please see changes I have made to try to finalise outstanding queries we had logged, relating to the governance docs. Please note, we should avoid editing this CHARTER.md regularly, so if you think any more edits need to be done to it, let's do it in this branch. For example, #22?
In the Charter it says -
So after we've agreed on these edits, we need to offer the changes out to all community members.
Itemised list
✅ I attempted this here - 5639775 and 9015984
@goodalse2019 you gave a nice description here but I think that should make its way into documentation specific project docs :)
✅ I think what this is getting at is that we don't say someone has to leave after X number of years, or someone has to wait X number of months/years in between successive 'terms'. I don't think this is necessary for our community right now so I suggest we leave this term wording as it is - b1b9b4c
✅ I think the words "or maintainers of the project can request a different license, to be approved by the Steering Committe" are sufficient - c3bb932
✅ Gave it a go here, using text from other places - 27aadb9
✅ On second reading, I think this is fine. I don't want to edit this too much because I think it is carefully written. If people have suggested changes on how to capture more documentation type projects in these trademarks, let me know, but I think it's general enough to be okay. b915265
❓ The Code of Conduct in this goverance repo appears to match the one on our website, except the contact details.