19:00:40 <jillr> #startmeeting Ansible D&I WG Agenda: https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577
19:00:40 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 21 19:00:40 2021 UTC.
19:00:40 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
19:00:40 <zodbot> The chair is jillr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:40 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_d&i_wg_agenda:_https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577'
19:02:20 <cybette> o/
19:02:20 <tadeboro> o/
19:02:38 <jillr> #chairs cybette tadeboro
19:02:45 <jillr> hey folks  o/
19:02:51 <jillr> #chair cybette tadeboro
19:02:51 <zodbot> Current chairs: cybette jillr tadeboro
19:03:31 <jillr> #topic vote on sensu_go CoC  https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/6
19:04:32 <tadeboro> I did my best to explain what we expect and how we do things. Plus, I added contact information as requested.
19:04:58 <jillr> I'm +1 on the latest version, I'm not sure if felixfontein had outstanding questions
19:05:25 <tadeboro> felixfontein: Just wanted a vote before the collection is approved.
19:05:34 <jillr> ah ok
19:05:44 <cybette> +1 from me as well (sorry I looked at it this week and not earlier)
19:06:15 <cybette> #chair felixfontein
19:06:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: cybette felixfontein jillr tadeboro
19:06:46 <felixfontein> o/
19:07:15 <jillr> I don't know if misc is online and wants to cast a vote on the sensu_go CoC
19:07:24 <felixfontein> I think this meeting needs to approve the CoC(s) before we can include the collections in Ansible 3.0.0
19:07:39 <felixfontein> I don't have any questions :)
19:07:54 <jillr> awesome, thanks felixfontein :)
19:09:51 <jillr> he was pinged in the issue and I don't see a reply, are we comfortable proceeding and approving this CoC (given all present today are +1) or delay to try to get his vote?
19:10:19 <jillr> the cutoff for inclusion in the meta package is fast approaching
19:11:33 <thedoubl3j> o/
19:11:38 <felixfontein> the cutoff is next Wednesday
19:11:43 <jillr> #chair thedoubl3j
19:11:43 <zodbot> Current chairs: cybette felixfontein jillr tadeboro thedoubl3j
19:12:05 <felixfontein> so if you want to restrict votings to meetings of this WG, this is the last chance :)
19:12:13 <jillr> ^exactly
19:12:32 <tadeboro> misc did review the updated Sensu CoC, approved it, and suggested a few changes that I added to CoC.
19:12:48 <jillr> fwiw I'm comfortable proceeding, we reviewed last time and requested changes which have been made
19:12:51 <cybette> I think since misc reviewed the PR, he'll be ok with approving it
19:13:03 <jillr> ah, thanks tadeboro I missed that in the GH discussin
19:13:25 <felixfontein> tadeboro: do you have an URL for that PR?
19:13:32 <jillr> #link https://github.com/sensu/sensu-go-ansible/pull/248
19:13:33 <cybette> https://github.com/sensu/sensu-go-ansible/pull/248
19:13:42 <tadeboro> https://github.com/sensu/sensu-go-ansible/pull/248#issuecomment-759704115
19:13:43 <felixfontein> ah, just also found it :)
19:13:53 <cybette> :D
19:14:09 <tadeboro> Paste ALL the links ;)
19:14:15 <jillr> Do we agree this is approved or shall we have a formal vote?
19:14:48 <thedoubl3j> lgtm
19:14:54 <felixfontein> +1
19:15:08 <tadeboro> +0 (for obvious reasons)
19:15:14 <cybette> +1
19:15:24 <felixfontein> since nobody said anything against it, or asked for more discussion, I think it's ok
19:15:52 <felixfontein> everyone present except tadeboro mentioned +1, tadeboro abstained, so I would think it's as good as a formal vote :)
19:15:54 <jillr> Cool, adding a comment to the GH discussion now
19:16:25 <jillr> thanks tadeboro for all your work on that one!
19:16:34 <felixfontein> indeed :)
19:17:09 <jillr> #topic Contributor Covenant of Code, and dellemc-openmanage https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/3-
19:17:52 <jillr> this collection uses the Contributor Covenant CoC v1.4, so we're also voting on whether to blanket approve this version of this CoC for all collections
19:17:55 <jillr> #link https://github.com/dell/dellemc-openmanage-ansible-modules/blob/devel/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
19:18:13 <jillr> #link https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct/
19:19:15 <jillr> the base contributor covenent CoC doesn't include contact info, the version in the collection does have that added
19:19:22 <felixfontein> it's a modified version of the one in https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct/
19:19:43 <tadeboro> Collection maintainers added contact info.
19:20:04 * tadeboro is just stating thigs other already stated before today
19:21:13 <felixfontein> the 'regardless of' list in the first paragraph differs for example
19:22:10 <cybette> the latest contributor covenant CoC version is 2.0
19:23:25 <jillr> it looks like the collection version has removed `sex characteristics, education, socio-economic status` from the list
19:24:38 <felixfontein> there are small changes in Scope and Enforcement as well
19:25:09 <felixfontein> I wonder whether the CoC at that URL changed over time
19:25:29 <tadeboro> Maybe we should require a link if if collections want to use some well-known CoC? So that things do not diverge over time?
19:25:29 <felixfontein> (also because of the URL that's part of the collection's CoC)
19:25:48 <tadeboro> So link + contact info.
19:25:56 <felixfontein> I would expect that for a versioned CoC, one version will not change over time
19:26:13 <felixfontein> but I don't know whether https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ agrees on that
19:26:13 <cybette> yeah
19:27:29 <felixfontein> https://debezium.io/community/code-of-conduct/ and https://beijinglug.club/wiki/doku.php?id=docs:coc have exactly the same first paragraph as the dellemc CoC
19:27:36 <jillr> looks like it's the text from 1.3  https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/blob/release/content/version/1/3/0/code-of-conduct.md
19:28:05 <felixfontein> I wonder if someone made a modification, and then people started copying that...
19:28:10 <jillr> or at least closer to it, it's not exact...
19:28:14 <felixfontein> (without knowing that it's different)
19:28:21 <jillr> bad update from a previous version?
19:29:22 <jillr> So we have 2 different issues: 1) do we want to blanket approve 1.4 as it exists on https://www.contributor-covenant.org/  2) do we want to ask dell to change their collection CoC
19:29:32 <tadeboro> Hmm, so now we are discussing two things.
19:29:41 <felixfontein> https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/commits/release/content/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.md it looks like version 1.4 changed over time
19:29:54 <jillr> I imagine 1) is the quicker/easier topic
19:29:56 <felixfontein> there are commits like "Add sex characteristics" and "Add education and socio-economic status"
19:30:04 <jillr> without being versioned?  fun!  :)
19:30:11 <felixfontein> indeed...
19:30:19 <jillr> ok so the collection is using an earlier version 1.4
19:31:12 <tadeboro> I would vote +1 on 1).
19:31:48 <tadeboro> For 2, I would ask maintainers to include a link instead of copy so things stay up-to-date.
19:31:49 <jillr> vote: Should we approve the latest version of 1.4 as it appears today on https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
19:31:51 <felixfontein> it seems to be this version: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/blob/596972b6b6b2a26cbc47f2b23975d720b7c30d8f/content/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.md
19:32:08 <tadeboro> +1
19:32:09 <thedoubl3j> +1
19:32:09 <jillr> +1
19:32:17 <cybette> +1
19:32:40 <felixfontein> +1 on 1)
19:32:47 <jillr> passed
19:33:15 <jillr> 2) what do we want to do about the dellemc collection's inclusion of an older "version" of 1.4
19:35:20 <felixfontein> I think it would be great if they could update to the latest 1.4, but for me it would be OK if they don't want to (maybe they need to get their legal team involved, and they only sanctioned this specific version so far, etc.)
19:35:57 <jillr> I'm ok with that being a SHOULD update to the latest text, without blocking inclusion of the collection
19:36:21 <cybette> +1 for SHOULD update
19:36:28 <jillr> "sorry Dell legal, things outside your control changed without being properly versioned" :)
19:36:29 <thedoubl3j> +1 ^
19:36:38 <felixfontein> I guess if that text changes more in the future we'll have the same discussion again, do we want to force collections using this CoC to upgrade every formatting that the 1.4 version introduces (without being a new version)?
19:37:11 <felixfontein> so SHOULD sounds like a good idea, since it reduces pressure on collection owners to always check whether they have the latest version :)
19:37:20 <cybette> and recommend future new collections to include links if they want to use approved CoCs (Ansible, Contributor Covenant...) instead of copy-paste
19:37:22 <jillr> I think we should probably evaluate in on a case-by-case basis. I would have approved the version in the collection anyway, so that version is fine by me
19:37:31 <jillr> but if it was some other change I might not have approved it
19:37:48 <tadeboro> +1 for SHOULD update (content or link)
19:38:33 <jillr> so we're unanimously "SHOULD update but +1 to inclusion"
19:38:54 <felixfontein> +1
19:39:34 * jillr comments in github...
19:39:42 <felixfontein> thanks jillr!
19:42:49 <jillr> #topic open floor
19:44:28 <cybette> do we want to pre-approve Contributor Covenant CoC v2.0?
19:44:31 <cybette> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct/
19:44:39 <jillr> good idea
19:44:57 <jillr> #topic review/vote on Contributor Covenant CoC v2.0
19:47:27 <felixfontein> it seems to add 'community leaders', and also replace 'project maintainers' by them
19:48:21 <jillr> replaces "unwelcome" advances and replaces that with advances "of any kind" +10
19:48:21 <felixfontein> and it has explicit enforcement guidelines
19:49:23 <felixfontein> is 'community leader' meant in this sense? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_leader
19:51:03 <felixfontein> (maybe it's a stupid question, but I'm not really familiar with the term community leader, and the link to the german version of that wikipedia page is not really helping - it's essentially mayor of a city/town)
19:53:17 <thedoubl3j> I think community leader in this instance can mean a maintainer but a person that may not be a maintainer. like a person who is active within the community but doesn't actively maintain the code (like organizes meetings, discussion boards etc) a community leader can be a maintainer but not exclusively a maintainer
19:53:36 <cybette> community leader is quite a broad/vague term and may have different interpretations depending on language/location, whereas project maintainer is much clearer (but also more restrictive)
19:53:49 <thedoubl3j> ^^
19:54:18 <cybette> how does the other translations look? https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/tree/release/content/version/2/0
19:54:18 <jillr> the attribution suggests they adopted a lot of the changes from mozilla and I'm seeing some programs mozilla has called open leaders or community leaders
19:54:51 <felixfontein> sounds reasonable to me
19:55:02 <felixfontein> thanks for the explanations!
19:55:08 <jillr> I'd like some time to review this one and maybe dig up any PRs or mailing list threads where the changes were discussed to better understand the intent
19:55:25 <cybette> yep +1 for more time to review
19:55:40 <jillr> I'm a little divided on the proscriptive approach to enforcement; I see pros and cons
19:55:50 <tadeboro> That version reads way more formal compared to previous one.
19:56:58 <jillr> #action everyone to review contributor covenant CoC 2.0 for next time
19:58:05 <jillr> and other open topics for today?
19:58:16 <jillr> *any
19:58:29 <cybette> none from me
19:59:24 <felixfontein> none from me
19:59:31 <thedoubl3j> none from me
19:59:37 <jillr> #endmeeting