19:01:08 <jillr> #startmeeting Ansible D&I WG Agenda: https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577
19:01:08 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jan  7 19:01:08 2021 UTC.
19:01:08 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
19:01:08 <zodbot> The chair is jillr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:01:08 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:01:08 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_d&i_wg_agenda:_https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577'
19:01:16 <felixfontein> o/
19:01:30 <thedoubl3j> o/
19:01:32 * dericcrago waves
19:01:36 <cybette> \o
19:01:36 <jillr> #chairs cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr
19:01:49 <dmsimard> I'm more or less here due to dad ops, feel free to ping me
19:02:18 <jillr> #chair cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr
19:02:18 <zodbot> Current chairs: cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr
19:02:38 <jillr> Hi y'all!
19:02:46 <cybette> hello!
19:02:51 <dericcrago> hi
19:03:08 <jillr> #topic how the D&I team should evaluate the CoC
19:03:14 <thedoubl3j> hey folks
19:03:50 <jillr> This came about from the community working group last month, that we want collections which are included in the `ansible` package to adhere to a Code of Conduct (CoC) that meets our approval
19:03:58 <cybette> #chair dericcrago thedoubl3j
19:03:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: cybette dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein jillr thedoubl3j
19:04:35 <jillr> and in the community WG we thought that this group might be best suited to evaluating those CoCs, if a collection/project isn't using the Ansible CoC or a similarly "vetted" one like the Fedora CoC
19:05:42 <jillr> there's probably a couple ways we could go about that; like having a list of approved/accepted CoCs, having a sub-group that reviews CoCs when collections are submitted, etc
19:06:51 <jillr> but right now I think we're just at "let's see what this group thinks and go from there"
19:08:35 <cybette> might be good to gather some CoCs and find ones we like and recommend to be in the approved list, probably some that are similar to the Ansible CoC
19:08:59 <misc> and try to find CoC we wouldn't approve too
19:09:32 <cybette> +1 misc
19:09:34 <jillr> this page is no longer maintained afaik but might be a good starting point  https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations-
19:09:38 <misc> in fact, we can as well get random github projects and see their CoC and discuss them without the pressure of accepting fast
19:10:11 <thedoubl3j> +1 misc
19:10:20 <cybette> #chair misc
19:10:20 <zodbot> Current chairs: cybette dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein jillr misc thedoubl3j
19:10:22 <dtometzki> hello
19:10:46 <cybette> hi dtometzki !
19:12:03 <felixfontein> this collection has a different CoC: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/6
19:12:38 <felixfontein> https://github.com/sensu/sensu-go-ansible/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
19:12:43 <jillr> oh hah the name of that collection threw me, different meaning of inclusion  :)
19:13:53 <felixfontein> indeed :)
19:15:55 <cybette> I'm putting some of these in a hackpad: https://hackmd.io/vkslzOv0Raqx1QwaHzVEow
19:16:50 <jillr> at a quick read it seems promising.
19:17:06 <jillr> felixfontein: remind me please, what is the timeline for approving this collection?
19:17:27 <cybette> #info add your thoughts and CoCs you find to this note so we can start evaluating them https://hackmd.io/vkslzOv0Raqx1QwaHzVEow
19:17:33 <felixfontein> jillr: I think we should be done by the end of January
19:17:53 <jillr> we'll need to decide if we want to come up with at least an initial checklist of criteria for CoCs, or if that's a larger project and for these first collections we just want to get consensus of the group
19:17:55 <felixfontein> "2021-01-27: Final day for net-new collections to be reviewed and approved. They need to have been submitted prior to this to give reviewers a chance to look them over and for collection owners to fix any problems." (https://hackmd.io/y7BBcweNR3aRVLuMbKkDxw)
19:18:04 <jillr> thanks
19:19:09 <jillr> oh hrm, this doesn't have any contact info. it seems to be highly geared towards in-person events where a person would go find an organizer
19:20:03 <jillr> oh that info is in the link; https://sensu.io/conduct
19:20:24 <jillr> so I'd like to see them sync that info to the repo to make it more obvious
19:20:52 <cybette> +1 jillr
19:20:54 <jillr> or add any irc/github/etc info they may also have
19:21:02 <misc> cybette: so, do we want just the CoC proposed, or can we add already bad example in "not approved" ?
19:21:10 <misc> (trivially: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC )
19:21:36 <jillr> oh wow. that's something.
19:22:02 <thedoubl3j> so that could be a good check list item, contact info found in the CoC in the repo
19:22:32 <cybette> misc: I think we can add that directly to not approved :P
19:22:37 <jillr> Yeah so we have a couple topics in flight right now I think;
19:22:37 <felixfontein> btw, out of the applying collections, I found two using Ansible's CoC (t_systems_mms.icinga_director and ansible.utils), one with its own CoC (sensu), and two which don't seem to have a CoC
19:22:54 <jillr> 1. How do we as a group want to handle CoC approvals,
19:23:09 <jillr> 2. Do we want a list of "good" and "bad" CoCs,
19:23:21 <jillr> 3. What is our vote on the sensu-go-ansible collection CoC
19:23:51 <jillr> 3 has a deadline, do we want to focus on that first?
19:24:02 <jillr> or does it depend too much on the others?
19:24:38 <felixfontein> tadeboro: in case you're listening, 3 might interest you :)
19:24:39 <misc> I think we can handle 3 as a test run that help to clarify 1
19:24:59 <misc> 2 would emerge by itself after a few round of evalution, I think
19:25:22 <jillr> #topic Review the sensu-go-ansible collection CoC
19:25:38 <misc> and I think a list of "bad" would be interesting if there is some explanation of what is bad and more likely missing
19:25:38 <jillr> #link https://github.com/sensu/sensu-go-ansible/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
19:25:57 <cybette> yep good to use sensu as a trial
19:26:49 <jillr> the sensu CoC needs contact info in the README, or the link explicity called out (ie; for contact info click HERE)
19:27:15 <cybette> +1
19:27:28 <misc> I personnally think it should have a version or a identifier
19:28:46 <misc> and yes, it look geared to events, it is unclear if that apply also on virtual "things", even if I assume it does
19:29:28 <felixfontein> misc: do you mean the CoC should have a version number / identifier? I don't see something similar for Ansible's CoC either (https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/devel/community/code_of_conduct.html)
19:29:57 <jillr> I would encourage sensu to consider updating their CoC to be more generic and less heavily oriented towards in-person events but it's not a blocker to me
19:30:12 <cybette> should CoC have it's own version? or is it part of the collection version?
19:30:29 <jillr> some CoCs to but not all
19:30:30 <misc> felixfontein: yeah, as a general best practice  :)
19:30:32 <jillr> *do
19:30:50 <jillr> it's helpful if you ever update or change it
19:31:31 <jillr> So it sounds like we're at,
19:31:38 <misc> the part about project contributors 'Our Responsibilities' is interesting, cause does it mean anyone who send a patch, or does it mean anyone with write access ?
19:31:45 <jillr> 1. We require contact info be added to this CoC,
19:31:58 <cybette> got it. but at least Ansible's CoC seems to be tied with Ansible version in docs.
19:31:58 <jillr> 2. We would encourage Sense to add version info,
19:32:15 <jillr> 3. We would encourage them to use language that's slightly more project oriented and less conference oriented
19:32:37 <thedoubl3j> they have a statement about online and in person events under the scope header but that is all I have seen
19:32:41 <thedoubl3j> +1 jillr
19:33:21 <misc> the part of scope speak of "project maintainer", and I am unsure if that's different from "contributor"
19:33:23 <jillr> thedoubl3j: yeah they do, but a lot of the examples read as for in-person, there's no examples of acceptable/unacceptable online behaviour
19:33:42 <jillr> and enforcement doesn't have any languages for code contributors
19:33:48 <misc> (also, some typos)
19:34:25 <jillr> like, if I send abusive PRs is my github user going to be blocked from the repo?
19:34:48 <jillr> presumably "the event organizers will take any action they deem appropriate" also means maintainers?
19:35:11 <misc> and I think the part about gendered double standard could be written a bit better on the women vs men stuff, or a bit more generic too
19:35:14 <jillr> actually the more I think about it the more I want this language clarified
19:35:30 <jillr> or ya know, people in general and not just men and women  :)
19:35:49 * jillr sits queerly in a corner by themselves
19:36:34 <jillr> so this is all a good point to talk about 1. how strict do we want to be about language when accepting or denying a CoC?
19:36:50 <jillr> the intent of this CoC seems good to me.
19:37:10 <jillr> what things are blockers, and what things are nitpicks?
19:37:17 <misc> well, more generic on the double standards for non white folks, or folks from other part of the world, on top of gender
19:37:46 <jillr> Do we look at what we believe to be the intent of this CoC and assume good faith?
19:37:53 <felixfontein> I guess the best formulations won't help if the content is not enforced when something actually happens. so maybe we shouldn't be too hard on imperfections. (but then, I don't really have experience, so feel free to ignore me :) )
19:38:03 <misc> I think it is good, they tried to be inspired by widlely used one
19:38:13 <jillr> or require that this organization revises their blanket CoC for their communities?
19:38:28 <misc> felixfontein: yeah, but unless we do drill on CoC enforcement, we can't know :)
19:40:01 <cybette> maybe ask them to expand on the policy violations part, that section needs more clarification imho
19:40:06 <misc> but it seems good to me
19:40:51 <misc> (another nitpick, what happen when online is changed but not the copy, should it say something about which one is the right one in advance ?)
19:41:23 <jillr> since this is still new, what if we gave this feedback to tadeboro and see what they think, then vote at the next meeting?
19:41:38 <felixfontein> +1 on that
19:41:44 <cybette> +1
19:41:56 <misc> the online one has a phone number, I am quite sure they may not want to get called in the middle of the night for a event in india or something like that :/
19:42:08 <jillr> That feedback being we require clear contact info in-repo, we'd like version, and we have a lot of thoughts on the language we'd like to work with them on
19:42:20 <misc> yeah
19:42:24 <thedoubl3j> +1
19:42:26 <felixfontein> misc: if it is an office phone, they don't mind calls in the middle of the night, since they should go right to tape :)
19:42:36 <jillr> yeah that's one of the things that feels very event-focused. it could be different contact info for the repo, but it should be clear what it is
19:43:40 <jillr> cool. so we'll wrap that topic til next time, and while we're over time the next topic should be quick/informational
19:43:55 <jillr> #topic Hack-a-thon to support the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
19:44:03 <felixfontein> a meeting over time. who would have expected that ;)
19:44:08 <jillr> cybette: do you want to take this one? I only barely skimmed the email
19:44:11 <jillr> hehe
19:44:14 <misc> felixfontein: 2021 is full of surprise
19:44:40 <cybette> sure, actually dericcrago  was the one who brought it up (thanks!) as I didn't get the email, being based outside of US
19:44:44 <misc> (also, +1-855 is toll free, which is good )
19:45:18 <jillr> ah ok, I did get the email so I can run with it
19:46:04 <cybette> (he forwarded me the email just before the meeting)
19:46:14 <jillr> Red Hat offers a "day of service" benefit to US employees on Martin Luther King Jr day (Jan 18 this year) to volunteer in the community,
19:46:30 <cybette> so for Dr Martin Luther King Day, Red Hat is organizing a Day of Service. There's a hackathon to support the Southern Coalition for Social Justice's Open Data Policing project
19:46:37 <jillr> this yeah there's an open data project some folks are doing and they're looking for people with Ansible (and OpenShift) expertise to help
19:46:38 <cybette> https://southerncoalition.org/resources/open-data-policing-website-manual/
19:47:05 <jillr> *this year
19:47:14 <cybette> what's not clear to me is how non-RH people can participate
19:47:35 <jillr> I didn't think they could, but I'm game to have people try if they want to
19:48:02 <misc> cybette: getting hired fast, and then we are back in the initial case ?
19:48:40 <cybette> :D
19:48:43 <jillr> so, if folks are interested maybe give the link a try and see what happens?
19:48:59 <jillr> but we're over on time so I'm going to call this one, thanks for showing up y'all!
19:49:04 <jillr> #endmeeting