Looking for feedback on Fedora COC Enforcement Draft

[Brian Pepple]

On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 11:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 
> I have a question related to logistics that I pointed out earlier.  Once
> there is consensus, there should be a step where every contributor
> agrees to the COC explicitly.  I think the best place for this is to
> enforce it via the Fedora Account System and preferably club it with the
> CLA change.   Is there agreement on that?   Also the consequence of
> violating this wilfully should be explicit.

Yes, having contributors agree to the COC with the new CLA change makes
sense. Do we know when the CLA change is happening?

Later,
/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20110302/eac9bc74/attachment.bin