add code of conduct #129
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
approved, awaiting change
bug
configuration
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
extremely low priority
feature request
Fix it yourself
help wanted
invalid
mastodon_api
needs docs
needs tests
not a bug
planned
pleroma_api
privacy
question
static_fe
triage
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
7 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: AkkomaGang/akkoma#129
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "nbsp/akkoma:coc"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
following recent developments
probably worth some discussion and opinions from core contributors
i basically entirely agree with the document, i don't have any amendments to make
will give it a few days for comment but will adopt if nothing else is said
I'm 100% for this, i have done a once over and agree with everything
I've read the text, the only real issue is that this of course isn't written by a lawyer. So it might not be very watertight as far as rules go.
However I do have one issue with the first guideline:
I get why you'd use the words "professional space" here, referring to the typically toxic business environments. But keep in mind that one can also simply act in a professional manner, i.e. in line with their profession, usually boiling down to being responsible, ensuring quality and being respectful for your peers and colleagues. Or at least that's how I see it, but feel free to tell me if I'm wrong. But I do not view "suppressing individuality" as professional behavior. Rather the opposite.
I'm mostly concerned here with wording it correctly. Because from the get go it almost sounds to me like you're trying to say "we're all unprofessional here" which sounds a bit odd.
The rest of the guidelines are good as they are I think. I presume there's nothing else that should be added to it?
@ -0,0 +2,4 @@
The Akkoma project aims to be **enjoyable** for anyone to participate in, regardless of their identity or level of expertise. To achieve this, the community must create an environment which is **safe** and **equitable**; the following guidelines have been created with these goals in mind.
1. **This is not a professional space.** Individuality is not only welcome, but encouraged. Professionalism asks marginalized individuals to censor themselves, and perform their identity in an inauthentic, unchallenging manner, which caters solely to those in power (namely rich, white, cisgender, heterosexual men). Seeking professionalism is *antithetical* to the goal of equity, and thus, these guidelines reject it.
from off-site feedback, this reads as a litttttttle aggressive, which whilst potentially not unjustified, might scare some people off
this paragraph in general might be something to rework to say "this is a casual space, we don't expect full professional behaviour but we do expect civility" or similar
@ -0,0 +7,4 @@
- There will be queers, punks, femboys, drag queens, furries, hackers, kinksters, and all sorts of other people here. And the project will reflect that. If you don't like this, consider looking for Free Software projects [elsewhere](https://loose-files.keithhacks.cyou/img/trashcan.jpg).
2. **Treat individuals with respect.** Differing experiences and viewpoints deserve to be respected, and bigotry and harassment are not tolerated under any circumstances.
- Individuals should never be made to feel unsafe or unvalued due to their age, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, appearance, education, level of expertise, or other factors.
some additional off-site feedback: this could probably be codified into a positive-action rather than a negative-dont
like "Respect should be given regardless of [attribute list]"
@floatingghost gave you edit access to the branch; feel free to make any changes on your own
updated in line with comments
i think that's a lot cleaner
thoughts?
I have no complaint about the document as it is. Glad seeing base expectations being made here.
i'm fine with either version, lgtm
This version looks good to me!
Though the footer should probably be revised from
To something more like
looks fine to me!