Looking for feedback on Fedora COC Enforcement Draft

[Tom Callaway]

On 03/02/2011 02:11 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> AFAICT the purpose of requiring signatures, or the equivalent
> (clicking buttons, etc.) is to make it possible to sue people. You
> don't seriously want to, or think you will be able to, sue people who
> violate the Code of Conduct, right?

I don't necessarily agree with this assessment. Certainly, from the
perspective of the ICLA/FPCA, it is a legal agreement between two
parties (Fedora and the contributor), which is why we require
click-through agreement, but the intent is not to make it possible to
sue people, but to be able to have a record from contributors as to
their agreement to the ICLA/FPCA terms and for there to be a conscious
understanding on the part of the contributor that the terms of the
ICLA/FPCA apply to them.

The Code of Conduct is not a legal document, but I do think there is
value in establishing a conscious understanding on the part of the
contributor that there is an expectation that they must either follow
the COC or face the consequences (which include, but are not limited to,
removal from the Fedora Community).

I think that this can be accomplished without requiring contributors
click an "I agree" to the COC (and without tracking agreement to the
COC). I see the COC as more of a set of Bar Rules, posted on the wall in
a conspicuous place next to the Bartender.

The fact that all of our contributors will be required to login to FAS
to agree to the FPCA in the near future presents a unique opportunity
for each one to also see the new Bar Rules at the same time. Perhaps
something like:

"In addition to the new FPCA terms, Fedora now has a formal Code of
Conduct. A copy of this CoC is available here: https://foo.bar/baz
Please keep in mind that all Fedora Community members are expected to
follow the Code of Conduct."

~tom

==
Fedora Project