Looking for feedback on Fedora COC Enforcement Draft

[Max Spevack]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

>> I'm fine with not having people having to 'sign' an agreement for the 
>> COC (though maybe an acknowledgment that they read it would be nice), 
>> but I think just adding an FYI to the CLA announcement isn't enough 
>> since that would only ensure current contributors would see it, and 
>> not future ones.
>
> Agreed.

This makes me think of when we changed firstboot in Fedora 7 related to 
the Fedora EULA. [1]

The bottom line of that activity was that we no longer required the user 
to *AGREE* to/with anything, merly to *ACKNOWLEDGE* having been 
presented with some information.

This feels like a similar scenario.  I like the idea of showing people 
that these documents exist, and even making sure folks see those 
documents as part of the FAS account creation/CLA signing process.

But I think it's courting disaster to put in some logic that forces a 
contributor to *agree* with the wording.  It invites people to come up 
with clever ways to troll and game the system.

Create the documents.  Publicize the documents in different channels, 
and in ways that new and old contributors will see them.  Make it clear 
that these are ground rules.  But don't start tallying up a list of 
people who have specifically chosen to agree or not to agree.

--Max

[1] 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2007-May/003235.html