docs: update CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md to Contributor Covenant 2.0 #449
Conversation
|
@ljharb I've voiced my opinion on that in the past (I'm in favor of maintaining actual text, especially since we currently have all repos pointing to this repo which will then point somewhere else), but if we wanted to we could. This was just intended to update per the status quo. |
|
N redirects lands the user in the same place as N - 1 does :-) but fair, as an update to the status quo this ofc LGTM. |
|
I'm +1 on keeping a copy of the text. We should minimize redirects as well
as reliance on external sources
…On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 12:28 PM Tobias Nießen ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** approved this pull request.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#449?email_source=notifications&email_token=AADZYV3NHRQWOXKBJJMPWG3QXFQAXA5CNFSM4JV5ZBB2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOCOFFEQI#pullrequestreview-327832129>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADZYV4XX7VOCU334BVEOL3QXFQAXANCNFSM4JV5ZBBQ>
.
|
|
The discussion in the issue in the CPC repo and I think the agreement that we came to in that issue was to use a link to a specific sha. If only a small number of projects/places are going to disagree with that recommendation then ok, but if most are we should continue the discussion in that issue. @MylesBorins , @bnb as CPC members can you chime into that thread again. |
|
Just a bit worried that we may end up with CPC guidance say X, and then the very first project does something different. |
|
For some additional context, the discussion in the CPC issue ( openjs-foundation/cross-project-council#413) Is that we'd
|
|
I'm ok with this as an update on the status quo, but I do want us to come to agreement on what we'll go going forward. |
|
@mhdawson fwiw I do think that what the CPC does and what the individual projects do are distinct concerns, at least in the context of openjs-foundation/cross-project-council#413. |
|
@bnb not sure I agree. The in person discussion was around what we'd be recommending to projects and that is what triggered the changes to openjs-foundation/cross-project-council#413 to use a specific hash. |
|
@bnb yes, but the concern about privileging english speakers by only inlining the english version, versus the maintenance cost of inlining every translation, seems pretty broadly applicable. |
|
@mhdawson @ljharb please see my comment in openjs-foundation/cross-project-council#413 :) |
|
@bnb thanks for jumping into the discussion in openjs-foundation/cross-project-council#413 |
|
ping @nodejs/tsc |
|
also ping @nodejs/community-committee I suppose :) |
|
I think this has enough CommComm and TSC approvals so landing. |
Per openjs-foundation/cross-project-council#418, the Foundation is seemingly updating to the Contributor Covenant 2.0.
As far as I know, projects are required to use the Foundation CoC which is currently the Contributor Covenant so I'm just updating our own version of it to match.