Code of Conduct notes

[TimMonko]

First, I want to say I've always been grateful for repos that have a Code of Conduct, it really helps to create a welcoming environment, even if it seems like a small thing.

1. Reporting Guidelines are the people to report to up to date? I know Nick and Kira aren't as active any more. Also, it may be helpful to state why Charlotte Weaver is an alternative contact (if they still are).

[jni]

Thanks @TimMonko!

We are indeed in the process of updating this. We have the opportunity right now to be covered by the NumFOCUS CoC umbrella — see this thread (private core devs list) for some context, and the NF CoC itself.

@GenevieveBuckley and I went to the NF session and although we weren't fully convinced, we're still leaning towards adopting the NF policy, because some training and experience > no training or experience.

I'd welcome your thoughts on this! CC also @willingc, who probably has a broader perspective than most of us!

[willingc]

I'm neutral on the NF CoC itself, and I do agree that some training is better than no training.

Not a blocker but my biggest concern with the NF CoC report handling is that to my knowledge the CoC Working Group membership is not posted anywhere. It is fine to have a stock intake process but it is important to someone who may file a CoC issue that they know who might have access to the report.

I've never filed a CoC report, and I have had many opportunities where it would have been appropriate to do so. Having the workgroup membership posted provides some confidence that if I ever were to file a report that I would have some confidence that the report would be treated with care.

[TimMonko]

Carol's response finally got the wheels turning for me on this. One thing that I like about our current code of conduct is it's pretty explicit with its guidelines (moreso than NF's very short, kind of general one). I also like how our current has the diversity statement, and how we have clear reporting guidelines.

I definitely appreciate what Carol says about there not being public people listed that the NF CoC report goes to. As a best of both worlds it may be helpeful to have a napari internal team (with a clearly stated caveat that they have no formal training) vs the externally trained team (and perhaps, could replace Charlotte's role as a third party). Based on my trust of the napari team I would prefer first to go the napari's CoC committee, but I definitely could see others prefer something more anonymous.

One other thing I saw about NF's CoC report is that it takes 7+ minutes! I mean probably it would take me longer to write an informative email so it seems like a good idea, but that almost immediately made me give up.

I think I'm at the point of it doesn't have to be either or but potentially both and. I'm not sure what the requirements are to sign up for NF's (do we have to fully use their document, or just their committee?), but I do like our document mostly as is. I like how much more transparent our document as a whole is, with clear guidelines, goals, etc. NF's seems very light, which has both pros and cons.

[psobolewskiPhD]

Thanks for raising this issue @TimMonko
I think we should at a minimum, and ASAP, update the listed contact people.
It doesn't reflect well on the project in terms of how seriously code violations would be treated if it's clear the contact people are out-dated.

And I'm 💯 with @willingc on:

it is important to someone who may file a CoC issue that they know who might have access to the report.

[Czaki]

So maybe treat NF CoC as backup if someone has an objection with updated napari team?

[jni]

I don't think we have that option @Czaki — the NF CoC is either opt-in or opt-out.

There is the option of getting formal CoC training for some folks from the team/community and have them act as CoC contacts.

Appreciate all the points made above, thanks everyone for the discussion! Just been busy the past few days so I hope to pick this up again later this week!

(I will say I thought the NF CoC committee composition was public, but I can't find it rn.)

[willingc]

(I will say I thought the NF CoC committee composition was public, but I can't find it rn.)

@jni I thought so too but the NF CoC pages are a bit of a navigation mess. I couldn't find it. Even if it is there, it should be far easier to discover. 😉

[kamila-NF]

Hi there :) I'm working on implementation of NF CoC. Please find the information about the NF CoC Working Group members here https://numfocus.medium.com/meet-the-new-numfocus-code-of-conduct-working-group-a38b40f40fc3. We are contently working on additional onboarding material and GitHub CoC repo. Happy to help :)

[willingc]

Thanks @kamila-NF for the info. It will be very helpful to see it up on the NumFOCUS website.