19:01:08 #startmeeting Ansible D&I WG Agenda: https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577 19:01:08 Meeting started Thu Jan 7 19:01:08 2021 UTC. 19:01:08 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 19:01:08 The chair is jillr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:01:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:01:08 The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_d&i_wg_agenda:_https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577' 19:01:16 o/ 19:01:30 o/ 19:01:32 * dericcrago waves 19:01:36 \o 19:01:36 #chairs cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr 19:01:49 I'm more or less here due to dad ops, feel free to ping me 19:02:18 #chair cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr 19:02:18 Current chairs: cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr 19:02:38 Hi y'all! 19:02:46 hello! 19:02:51 hi 19:03:08 #topic how the D&I team should evaluate the CoC 19:03:14 hey folks 19:03:50 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 #chair dericcrago thedoubl3j 19:03:58 Current chairs: cybette dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein jillr thedoubl3j 19:04:35 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 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 but right now I think we're just at "let's see what this group thinks and go from there" 19:08:35 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similar to the Ansible CoC 19:08:59 and try to find CoC we wouldn't approve too 19:09:32 +1 misc 19:09:34 this page is no longer maintained afaik but might be a good starting point https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations- 19:09:38 in fact, we can as well get random github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 +1 misc 19:10:20 #chair misc 19:10:20 Current chairs: cybette dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein jillr misc thedoubl3j 19:10:22 hello 19:10:46 hi dtometzki ! 19:12:03 this collection has a different CoC: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/6 19:12:38 https://github.com/sensu/sensu-go-ansible/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md 19:12:43 oh hah the name of that collection threw me, different meaning of inclusion :) 19:13:53 indeed :) 19:15:55 I'm putting some of these in a hackpad: https://hackmd.io/vkslzOv0Raqx1QwaHzVEow 19:16:50 at a quick read it seems promising. 19:17:06 felixfontein: remind me please, what is the timeline for approving this collection? 19:17:27 #info add your thoughts and CoCs you find to this note so we can start evaluating them https://hackmd.io/vkslzOv0Raqx1QwaHzVEow 19:17:33 jillr: I think we should be done by the end of January 19:17:53 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 "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 thanks 19:19:09 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 oh that info is in the link; https://sensu.io/conduct 19:20:24 so I'd like to see them sync that info to the repo to make it more obvious 19:20:52 +1 jillr 19:20:54 or add any irc/github/etc info they may also have 19:21:02 cybette: so, do we want just the CoC proposed, or can we add already bad example in "not approved" ? 19:21:10 (trivially: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC ) 19:21:36 oh wow. that's something. 19:22:02 so that could be a good check list item, contact info found in the CoC in the repo 19:22:32 misc: I think we can add that directly to not approved :P 19:22:37 Yeah so we have a couple topics in flight right now I think; 19:22:37 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 1. How do we as a group want to handle CoC approvals, 19:23:09 2. Do we want a list of "good" and "bad" CoCs, 19:23:21 3. What is our vote on the sensu-go-ansible collection CoC 19:23:51 3 has a deadline, do we want to focus on that first? 19:24:02 or does it depend too much on the others? 19:24:38 tadeboro: in case you're listening, 3 might interest you :) 19:24:39 I think we can handle 3 as a test run that help to clarify 1 19:24:59 2 would emerge by itself after a few round of evalution, I think 19:25:22 #topic Review the sensu-go-ansible collection CoC 19:25:38 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 #link https://github.com/sensu/sensu-go-ansible/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md 19:25:57 yep good to use sensu as a trial 19:26:49 the sensu CoC needs contact info in the README, or the link explicity called out (ie; for contact info click HERE) 19:27:15 +1 19:27:28 I personnally think it should have a version or a identifier 19:28:46 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 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 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 should CoC have it's own version? or is it part of the collection version? 19:30:29 some CoCs to but not all 19:30:30 felixfontein: yeah, as a general best practice :) 19:30:32 *do 19:30:50 it's helpful if you ever update or change it 19:31:31 So it sounds like we're at, 19:31:38 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 1. We require contact info be added to this CoC, 19:31:58 got it. but at least Ansible's CoC seems to be tied with Ansible version in docs. 19:31:58 2. We would encourage Sense to add version info, 19:32:15 3. We would encourage them to use language that's slightly more project oriented and less conference oriented 19:32:37 they have a statement about online and in person events under the scope header but that is all I have seen 19:32:41 +1 jillr 19:33:21 the part of scope speak of "project maintainer", and I am unsure if that's different from "contributor" 19:33:23 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 and enforcement doesn't have any languages for code contributors 19:33:48 (also, some typos) 19:34:25 like, if I send abusive PRs is my github user going to be blocked from the repo? 19:34:48 presumably "the event organizers will take any action they deem appropriate" also means maintainers? 19:35:11 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 actually the more I think about it the more I want this language clarified 19:35:30 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 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 the intent of this CoC seems good to me. 19:37:10 what things are blockers, and what things are nitpicks? 19:37:17 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 Do we look at what we believe to be the intent of this CoC and assume good faith? 19:37:53 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 I think it is good, they tried to be inspired by widlely used one 19:38:13 or require that this organization revises their blanket CoC for their communities? 19:38:28 felixfontein: yeah, but unless we do drill on CoC enforcement, we can't know :) 19:40:01 maybe ask them to expand on the policy violations part, that section needs more clarification imho 19:40:06 but it seems good to me 19:40:51 (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 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 +1 on that 19:41:44 +1 19:41:56 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 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 yeah 19:42:24 +1 19:42:26 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 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 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 #topic Hack-a-thon to support the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. 19:44:03 a meeting over time. who would have expected that ;) 19:44:08 cybette: do you want to take this one? I only barely skimmed the email 19:44:11 hehe 19:44:14 felixfontein: 2021 is full of surprise 19:44:40 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 (also, +1-855 is toll free, which is good ) 19:45:18 ah ok, I did get the email so I can run with it 19:46:04 (he forwarded me the email just before the meeting) 19:46:14 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 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 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 https://southerncoalition.org/resources/open-data-policing-website-manual/ 19:47:05 *this year 19:47:14 what's not clear to me is how non-RH people can participate 19:47:35 I didn't think they could, but I'm game to have people try if they want to 19:48:02 cybette: getting hired fast, and then we are back in the initial case ? 19:48:40 :D 19:48:43 so, if folks are interested maybe give the link a try and see what happens? 19:48:59 but we're over on time so I'm going to call this one, thanks for showing up y'all! 19:49:04 #endmeeting