1
0
mirror of https://github.com/golang/go synced 2024-11-18 13:04:46 -07:00
go/doc/conduct.html

261 lines
8.8 KiB
HTML
Raw Normal View History

<!--{
"Title": "Go Community Code of Conduct",
"Path": "/conduct",
"Template": true
}-->
<style>
ul {
max-width: 800px;
}
ul ul {
margin: 0 0 5px;
}
</style>
<h2 id="about">About the Code of Conduct</h2>
<h3 id="why">Why have a Code of Conduct?</h3>
<p>
Online communities include people from many different backgrounds.
The Go contributors are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming
environment for all, regardless of age, disability, gender, nationality,
ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or similar personal characteristic.
</p>
<p>
The first goal of the Code of Conduct is to specify a baseline standard
of behavior so that people with different social values and communication
styles can talk about Go effectively, productively, and respectfully.
</p>
<p>
The second goal is to provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts in the
community when they arise.
</p>
<p>
The third goal of the Code of Conduct is to make our community welcoming to
people from different backgrounds.
Diversity is critical to the project; for Go to be successful, it needs
contributors and users from all backgrounds.
(See <a href="https://blog.golang.org/open-source">Go, Open Source, Community</a>.)
</p>
<p>
With that said, a healthy community must allow for disagreement and debate.
The Code of Conduct is not a mechanism for people to silence others with whom
they disagree.
</p>
<h3 id="spaces">Where does the Code of Conduct apply?</h3>
<p>
If you participate in or contribute to the Go ecosystem in any way,
you are encouraged to follow the Code of Conduct while doing so.
</p>
<p>
Explicit enforcement of the Code of Conduct applies to the
official forums operated by the Go project (“Go spaces”):
</p>
<ul>
<li>The official <a href="https://github.com/golang/">GitHub projects</a>
and <a href="https://go-review.googlesource.com/">code reviews</a>.
<li>The <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts">golang-nuts</a> and
<a href="https://groups.google.com/group/golang-dev">golang-dev</a> mailing lists.
<li>The #go-nuts IRC channel on Freenode.
</ul>
<p>
Other Go groups (such as conferences, meetups, and other unofficial forums) are
encouraged to adopt this Code of Conduct. Those groups must provide their own
moderators and/or working group (see below).
</p>
<h2 id="values">Gopher values</h2>
<p>
These are the values to which people in the Go community (“Gophers”) should aspire.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Be friendly and welcoming
<li>Be patient
<ul>
<li>Remember that people have varying communication styles and that not
everyone is using their native language.
(Meaning and tone can be lost in translation.)
</ul>
<li>Be thoughtful
<ul>
<li>Productive communication requires effort.
Think about how your words will be interpreted.
<li>Remember that sometimes it is best to refrain entirely from commenting.
</ul>
<li>Be respectful
<ul>
<li>In particular, respect differences of opinion.
</ul>
<li>Be charitable
<ul>
<li>Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to disagree.
<li>When we do disagree, try to understand why.
</ul>
<li>Avoid destructive behavior:
<ul>
<li>Derailing: stay on topic; if you want to talk about something else,
start a new conversation.
<li>Unconstructive criticism: don't merely decry the current state of affairs;
offer—or at least solicit—suggestions as to how things may be improved.
<li>Snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments)
<li>Discussing potentially offensive or sensitive issues;
this all too often leads to unnecessary conflict.
<li>Microaggressions: brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral and
environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative
slights and insults to a person or group.
</ul>
</ul>
<p>
People are complicated.
You should expect to be misunderstood and to misunderstand others;
when this inevitably occurs, resist the urge to be defensive or assign blame.
Try not to take offense where no offense was intended.
Give people the benefit of the doubt.
Even if the intent was to provoke, do not rise to it.
It is the responsibility of <i>all parties</i> to de-escalate conflict when it arises.
</p>
<h2 id="unwelcome_behavior">Unwelcome behavior</h2>
<p>
These actions are explicitly forbidden in Go spaces:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Insulting, demeaning, hateful, or threatening remarks.
<li>Discrimination based on age, disability, gender, nationality, race,
religion, sexuality, or similar personal characteristic.
<li>Bullying or systematic harassment.
<li>Unwelcome sexual advances.
<li>Incitement to any of these.
</ul>
<h2 id="moderation">Moderation</h2>
<p>
The Go spaces are not free speech venues; they are for discussion about Go.
doc: update Code of Conduct wording and scope This change removes the punitive language and anonymous reporting mechanism from the Code of Conduct document. Read on for the rationale. More than a year has passed since the Go Code of Conduct was introduced. In that time, there have been a small number (<30) of reports to the Working Group. Some reports we handled well, with positive outcomes for all involved. A few reports we handled badly, resulting in hurt feelings and a bad experience for all involved. On reflection, the reports that had positive outcomes were ones where the Working Group took the role of advisor/facilitator, listening to complaints and providing suggestions and advice to the parties involved. The reports that had negative outcomes were ones where the subject of the report felt threatened by the Working Group and Code of Conduct. After some discussion among the Working Group, we saw that we are most effective as facilitators, rather than disciplinarians. The various Go spaces already have moderators; this change to the CoC acknowledges their authority and places the group in a purely advisory role. If an incident is reported to the group we may provide information to or make a suggestion the moderators, but the Working Group need not (and should not) have any authority to take disciplinary action. In short, we want it to be clear that the Working Group are here to help resolve conflict, period. The second change made here is the removal of the anonymous reporting mechanism. To date, the quality of anonymous reports has been low, and with no way to reach out to the reporter for more information there is often very little we can do in response. Removing this one-way reporting mechanism strengthens the message that the Working Group are here to facilitate a constructive dialogue. Change-Id: Iee52aff5446accd0dae0c937bb3aa89709ad5fb4 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37014 Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2017-02-14 16:34:46 -07:00
Each of these spaces have their own moderators.
</p>
<p>
When using the official Go spaces you should act in the spirit of the “Gopher
values”.
doc: update Code of Conduct wording and scope This change removes the punitive language and anonymous reporting mechanism from the Code of Conduct document. Read on for the rationale. More than a year has passed since the Go Code of Conduct was introduced. In that time, there have been a small number (<30) of reports to the Working Group. Some reports we handled well, with positive outcomes for all involved. A few reports we handled badly, resulting in hurt feelings and a bad experience for all involved. On reflection, the reports that had positive outcomes were ones where the Working Group took the role of advisor/facilitator, listening to complaints and providing suggestions and advice to the parties involved. The reports that had negative outcomes were ones where the subject of the report felt threatened by the Working Group and Code of Conduct. After some discussion among the Working Group, we saw that we are most effective as facilitators, rather than disciplinarians. The various Go spaces already have moderators; this change to the CoC acknowledges their authority and places the group in a purely advisory role. If an incident is reported to the group we may provide information to or make a suggestion the moderators, but the Working Group need not (and should not) have any authority to take disciplinary action. In short, we want it to be clear that the Working Group are here to help resolve conflict, period. The second change made here is the removal of the anonymous reporting mechanism. To date, the quality of anonymous reports has been low, and with no way to reach out to the reporter for more information there is often very little we can do in response. Removing this one-way reporting mechanism strengthens the message that the Working Group are here to facilitate a constructive dialogue. Change-Id: Iee52aff5446accd0dae0c937bb3aa89709ad5fb4 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37014 Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2017-02-14 16:34:46 -07:00
If a reported conflict cannot be resolved amicably, the CoC Working Group
may make a recommendation to the relevant forum moderators.
</p>
<p>
doc: update Code of Conduct wording and scope This change removes the punitive language and anonymous reporting mechanism from the Code of Conduct document. Read on for the rationale. More than a year has passed since the Go Code of Conduct was introduced. In that time, there have been a small number (<30) of reports to the Working Group. Some reports we handled well, with positive outcomes for all involved. A few reports we handled badly, resulting in hurt feelings and a bad experience for all involved. On reflection, the reports that had positive outcomes were ones where the Working Group took the role of advisor/facilitator, listening to complaints and providing suggestions and advice to the parties involved. The reports that had negative outcomes were ones where the subject of the report felt threatened by the Working Group and Code of Conduct. After some discussion among the Working Group, we saw that we are most effective as facilitators, rather than disciplinarians. The various Go spaces already have moderators; this change to the CoC acknowledges their authority and places the group in a purely advisory role. If an incident is reported to the group we may provide information to or make a suggestion the moderators, but the Working Group need not (and should not) have any authority to take disciplinary action. In short, we want it to be clear that the Working Group are here to help resolve conflict, period. The second change made here is the removal of the anonymous reporting mechanism. To date, the quality of anonymous reports has been low, and with no way to reach out to the reporter for more information there is often very little we can do in response. Removing this one-way reporting mechanism strengthens the message that the Working Group are here to facilitate a constructive dialogue. Change-Id: Iee52aff5446accd0dae0c937bb3aa89709ad5fb4 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37014 Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2017-02-14 16:34:46 -07:00
CoC Working Group members and forum moderators are held to a higher standard than other community members.
If a working group member or moderator creates an inappropriate situation, they
should expect less leeway than others, and should expect to be removed from
their position if they cannot adhere to the CoC.
</p>
<p>
doc: update Code of Conduct wording and scope This change removes the punitive language and anonymous reporting mechanism from the Code of Conduct document. Read on for the rationale. More than a year has passed since the Go Code of Conduct was introduced. In that time, there have been a small number (<30) of reports to the Working Group. Some reports we handled well, with positive outcomes for all involved. A few reports we handled badly, resulting in hurt feelings and a bad experience for all involved. On reflection, the reports that had positive outcomes were ones where the Working Group took the role of advisor/facilitator, listening to complaints and providing suggestions and advice to the parties involved. The reports that had negative outcomes were ones where the subject of the report felt threatened by the Working Group and Code of Conduct. After some discussion among the Working Group, we saw that we are most effective as facilitators, rather than disciplinarians. The various Go spaces already have moderators; this change to the CoC acknowledges their authority and places the group in a purely advisory role. If an incident is reported to the group we may provide information to or make a suggestion the moderators, but the Working Group need not (and should not) have any authority to take disciplinary action. In short, we want it to be clear that the Working Group are here to help resolve conflict, period. The second change made here is the removal of the anonymous reporting mechanism. To date, the quality of anonymous reports has been low, and with no way to reach out to the reporter for more information there is often very little we can do in response. Removing this one-way reporting mechanism strengthens the message that the Working Group are here to facilitate a constructive dialogue. Change-Id: Iee52aff5446accd0dae0c937bb3aa89709ad5fb4 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37014 Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2017-02-14 16:34:46 -07:00
Complaints about working group member or moderator actions must be handled
using the reporting process below.
</p>
<h2 id="reporting">Reporting issues</h2>
<p>
The Code of Conduct Working Group is a group of people that represent the Go
community. They are responsible for handling conduct-related issues.
Their purpose is to de-escalate conflicts and try to resolve issues to the
satisfaction of all parties. They are:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Aditya Mukerjee &lt;dev@chimeracoder.net&gt;
<li>Andrew Gerrand &lt;adg@golang.org&gt;
<li>Peggy Li &lt;peggyli.224@gmail.com&gt;
<li>Sarah Adams &lt;sadams.codes@gmail.com&gt;
<li>Steve Francia &lt;steve.francia@gmail.com&gt;
<li>Verónica López &lt;gveronicalg@gmail.com&gt;
</ul>
<p>
If you encounter a conduct-related issue, you should report it to the
Working Group using the process described below.
<b>Do not</b> post about the issue publicly or try to rally sentiment against a
particular individual or group.
</p>
<ul>
doc: update Code of Conduct wording and scope This change removes the punitive language and anonymous reporting mechanism from the Code of Conduct document. Read on for the rationale. More than a year has passed since the Go Code of Conduct was introduced. In that time, there have been a small number (<30) of reports to the Working Group. Some reports we handled well, with positive outcomes for all involved. A few reports we handled badly, resulting in hurt feelings and a bad experience for all involved. On reflection, the reports that had positive outcomes were ones where the Working Group took the role of advisor/facilitator, listening to complaints and providing suggestions and advice to the parties involved. The reports that had negative outcomes were ones where the subject of the report felt threatened by the Working Group and Code of Conduct. After some discussion among the Working Group, we saw that we are most effective as facilitators, rather than disciplinarians. The various Go spaces already have moderators; this change to the CoC acknowledges their authority and places the group in a purely advisory role. If an incident is reported to the group we may provide information to or make a suggestion the moderators, but the Working Group need not (and should not) have any authority to take disciplinary action. In short, we want it to be clear that the Working Group are here to help resolve conflict, period. The second change made here is the removal of the anonymous reporting mechanism. To date, the quality of anonymous reports has been low, and with no way to reach out to the reporter for more information there is often very little we can do in response. Removing this one-way reporting mechanism strengthens the message that the Working Group are here to facilitate a constructive dialogue. Change-Id: Iee52aff5446accd0dae0c937bb3aa89709ad5fb4 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37014 Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2017-02-14 16:34:46 -07:00
<li>Mail <a href="mailto:conduct@golang.org">conduct@golang.org</a>.
<ul>
<li>Your message will reach the Working Group.
<li>Reports are confidential within the Working Group.
<li>You may contact a member of the group directly if you do not feel
comfortable contacting the group as a whole. That member will then raise
the issue with the Working Group as a whole, preserving the privacy of the
reporter (if desired).
<li>If your report concerns a member of the Working Group they will be recused
from Working Group discussions of the report.
<li>The Working Group will strive to handle reports with discretion and
sensitivity, to protect the privacy of the involved parties,
and to avoid conflicts of interest.
</ul>
<li>You should receive a response within 48 hours (likely sooner).
(Should you choose to contact a single Working Group member,
it may take longer to receive a response.)
<li>The Working Group will meet to review the incident and determine what happened.
<ul>
<li>With the permission of person reporting the incident, the Working Group
may reach out to other community members for more context.
</ul>
<li>The Working Group will reach a decision as to how to act. These may include:
<ul>
<li>Nothing.
doc: update Code of Conduct wording and scope This change removes the punitive language and anonymous reporting mechanism from the Code of Conduct document. Read on for the rationale. More than a year has passed since the Go Code of Conduct was introduced. In that time, there have been a small number (<30) of reports to the Working Group. Some reports we handled well, with positive outcomes for all involved. A few reports we handled badly, resulting in hurt feelings and a bad experience for all involved. On reflection, the reports that had positive outcomes were ones where the Working Group took the role of advisor/facilitator, listening to complaints and providing suggestions and advice to the parties involved. The reports that had negative outcomes were ones where the subject of the report felt threatened by the Working Group and Code of Conduct. After some discussion among the Working Group, we saw that we are most effective as facilitators, rather than disciplinarians. The various Go spaces already have moderators; this change to the CoC acknowledges their authority and places the group in a purely advisory role. If an incident is reported to the group we may provide information to or make a suggestion the moderators, but the Working Group need not (and should not) have any authority to take disciplinary action. In short, we want it to be clear that the Working Group are here to help resolve conflict, period. The second change made here is the removal of the anonymous reporting mechanism. To date, the quality of anonymous reports has been low, and with no way to reach out to the reporter for more information there is often very little we can do in response. Removing this one-way reporting mechanism strengthens the message that the Working Group are here to facilitate a constructive dialogue. Change-Id: Iee52aff5446accd0dae0c937bb3aa89709ad5fb4 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37014 Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
2017-02-14 16:34:46 -07:00
<li>Passing the report along to the offender.
<li>A recommendation of action to the relevant forum moderators.
</ul>
<li>The Working Group will reach out to the original reporter to let them know
the decision.
<li>Appeals to the decision may be made to the Working Group,
or to any of its members directly.
</ul>
<p>
<b>Note that the goal of the Code of Conduct and the Working Group is to resolve
conflicts in the most harmonious way possible.</b>
We hope that in most cases issues may be resolved through polite discussion and
mutual agreement.
</p>
<p>
Changes to the Code of Conduct (including to the members of the Working Group)
should be proposed using the
<a href="https://golang.org/s/proposal-process">change proposal process</a>.
</p>
<h2 id="summary">Summary</h2>
<ul>
<li>Treat everyone with respect and kindness.
<li>Be thoughtful in how you communicate.
<li>Dont be destructive or inflammatory.
<li>If you encounter an issue, please mail <a href="mailto:conduct@golang.org">conduct@golang.org</a>.
</ul>
<h3 id="acknowledgements">Acknowledgements</h3>
<p>
Parts of this document were derived from the Code of Conduct documents of the
Django, FreeBSD, and Rust projects.
</p>