cprofitt added a new comment to an issue you are following:
Ubuntu related links:
CoC - https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct
Community Council - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil
Ubuntu Community Governance -
Fedora has no Benevolent Dictator so some parts of the Ubuntu CoC will clearly not apply.
The general overall 'tone' or 'guiding principal' is 'be good to each
other'. When I participated in creating the document I learned that one of the fears
that was guiding certain language was one of gridlock. There was a desire to not allow
disputes to gridlock the community. A clear mandate for 'leaders' to make
decisions was included, but a requirement to do so in a transparent and tactful manner.
Another key component was for 'leaders' to know when to step down gracefully. This
was designed to allow people to step away from the project when they realized that they
could no longer dedicate sufficient time to the projects / items they were leading. In
many cases leaders left and did not hand over 'control' or conflicts arose when
leaders were non-responsive and holding up a process. While this falls outside what many
think of as normal for a CoC I see value in having some provisions in place for dealing
with these situations.
As a note -- almost every alleged violation of the CoC was disputed. At times the dispute
was limited to the person being banned from IRC channels, but there were times that
disputes were between large groups on either side. What ever body or person is responsible
for making these decisions must have the 'authority' to do so and there must be a
well documented appeal process that involves the ability to bring in people who do not
have a conflict of interest. The policy has to apply to everyone regardless of how
'important' the person is to Fedora. High profile members of the community should
not receive deferential treatment.
example: irc user is banned from #fedora channels due to repeated violations of the CoC.
This person then claims that the IRC person / body that enacted the ban has a conflict of
interest. That should elevate to a group of people who do not have any governance powers
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email