Update code of conduct

[adamradocz]

Response to the first item at #2819

[lfield]

This change requires general project consensus. Is this a PMC or Committers vote?

[adamradocz]

This change requires general project consensus. Is this a PMC or Committers vote?

No, this change hasn't voted. I just proposed an idea, to move a more standardized, but very similar code of conduct that we have.

[TheAspens]

This would require a PMC vote for approval, but I would like to have a majority of committers indicate their support of this as well as a good discussion of it before taking it before the PMC.

[CharlieFenton]

Since @TheAspens requested comments from committers, I am responding. I don't have strong opinions about these changes one way or the other, but I do feel that the sections to be deleted have some worthwhile wording that should perhaps be retained. I don't have the time or inclination to go into further detail about this.

[tristanolive]

I don't think we gain anything by using the github template. If I recall, that template (among others) was used as a starting point for the BOINC code of conduct and ideas from different resources were melded together into what we have.

If there are specific shortcomings, it makes sense to address them, but I'd view this move as unnecessary and maybe even a step backwards in terms of readability (I may just be missing the specifics in the diff).

[adamradocz]

Feel free to close if you think it's unnecessary.

[brevilo]

I had a brief look at the proposed changes. Before I dive any deeper I'd like to understand the motivation for those changes:

• why are these changes necessary?
• what problem do they address?
• how are they an improvement over the current doc?

[adamradocz]

I had a brief look at the proposed changes. Before I dive any deeper I'd like to understand the motivation for those changes:

• why are these changes necessary?
• what problem do they address?
• how are they an improvement over the current doc?

I thought a standardized version of the COC is easier to understand, more people familiar with it, because of its standardized nature. That's it, nothing fancy.

[brevilo]

Thanks, I see your point Adam. I don't have a strong opinion on this: I'm neither sure the COC represents such a standard, nor do I think we stray far from any COC as they're all structured similarly, while still representing each project's specifics. Again, I'm neutral on this as I mostly care about the content and its clear communication and not so much about a perceived standardization. Up to the PMC...

[adamradocz]

I'm going to close this issue, because the trouble bigger with it, then the expected gain.