Add rules for jdev #1290
Draft
Add rules for jdev #1290
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
truenicoco
reviewed
Jul 25, 2023
|
|
||
| Like any growing community, the XMPP Developers Channel has a set of rules to govern the interactions, in order to make as many people as possible feel safe and welcome. | ||
|
|
||
| Above all, the [Community Code of Conduct of the XMPP Standards Foundation](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0458.html) (still under discussion, but unless stated otherwise in *this* document, the current experimental version applies nontheless) applies, called CoC hereafter. That means that behaviour which goes against the CoC is automatically not accepted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nontheless -> nonetheless
truenicoco
reviewed
Jul 25, 2023
|
|
||
| ## On-Topicness | ||
|
|
||
| The channel started out as a place for developers to work together to improve the state of XMPP software in general, encompassing topics such as software interoperability (as opposed to deployment interoperability; for the latter, the [Operators channel](operators-rules.md) is the better a place), reliability, security and standards edge cases. It can provide valuable information when just reading passively, but also when actively asking. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is the better a place
is a better place?
Maybe it's an English idiom I don't know though.
Echolon
added
enhancement
Website 🖱️
|
@horazont can you also establish a link from this this page: https://xmpp.org/community/chat/ |
|
Are there dedicated admins for jdev? |
|
Hi @horazont, a kind reminder on this PR and change requests. |
cal0pteryx
reviewed
Oct 26, 2023
|
|
||
| ## About the XMPP Developers Channel ("jdev") | ||
|
|
||
| The XMPP Developers Channel is located at [jdev@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:jdev@muc.xmpp.org?join). It is a place primarily for developers of software following or aiming to follow XMPP standards (RFC 6120--6122, as well as XMPP Extension Proposals, and updated versions of the RFCs), to have civil and low-bar knowledge transfer, learning and support in the task of implementing the various pieces of the XMPP standard compendium. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The XMPP Developers Channel is located at [jdev@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:jdev@muc.xmpp.org?join). It is a place primarily for developers of software following or aiming to follow XMPP standards (RFC 6120--6122, as well as XMPP Extension Proposals, and updated versions of the RFCs), to have civil and low-bar knowledge transfer, learning and support in the task of implementing the various pieces of the XMPP standard compendium. | |
| The XMPP Developers Channel is located at [jdev@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:jdev@muc.xmpp.org?join). It is a place primarily for developers of software following or aiming to follow XMPP standards (RFC 6120--6122, as well as [XMPP Extension Proposals](/extensions), and updated versions of the [RFCs](/rfcs)), to have civil and low-bar knowledge transfer, learning and support in the task of implementing the various pieces of the XMPP standard compendium. |
|
|
||
| For transgressions solely happening within the XMPP Developers channel, the channel admins are an acceptable first point of contact. | ||
|
|
||
| **Note**: The CoC only applies to XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) members and venues. It does not automatically apply to all members of all XMPP channels. Do not report misconduct in venues outside of the control of the XSF to this room or the XSF Conduct Team, unless an XSF member is involved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| **Note**: The CoC only applies to XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) members and venues. It does not automatically apply to all members of all XMPP channels. Do not report misconduct in venues outside of the control of the XSF to this room or the XSF Conduct Team, unless an XSF member is involved. | |
| **Note**: The CoC only applies to XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) [members](/community/membership) and venues. It does not automatically apply to all members of all XMPP channels. Do not report misconduct in venues outside of the control of the XSF to this room or the XSF Conduct Team, unless an XSF member is involved. |
|
|
||
| ## On-Topicness | ||
|
|
||
| The channel started out as a place for developers to work together to improve the state of XMPP software in general, encompassing topics such as software interoperability (as opposed to deployment interoperability; for the latter, the [Operators channel](operators-rules.md) is the better a place), reliability, security and standards edge cases. It can provide valuable information when just reading passively, but also when actively asking. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The channel started out as a place for developers to work together to improve the state of XMPP software in general, encompassing topics such as software interoperability (as opposed to deployment interoperability; for the latter, the [Operators channel](operators-rules.md) is the better a place), reliability, security and standards edge cases. It can provide valuable information when just reading passively, but also when actively asking. | |
| The channel started out as a place for developers to work together to improve the state of XMPP software in general, encompassing topics such as software interoperability (as opposed to deployment interoperability; for the latter, the [Operators channel](/community/channels/operators) is a better place), reliability, security and standards edge cases. It can provide valuable information when just reading passively, but also when actively asking. |
|
|
||
| ### On-Topic induced Off-Topic | ||
|
|
||
| Since some of the on-topic cases can quickly derail into off-topic when debates become ad-hominem. When debating controversial topics, the difference between an insult or judgement and a discussion is in the rationale. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First sentence sounds incomplete to me. Maybe better without starting with "Since"?
|
|
||
| ### I want to discuss something that is considered off-topic in this channel, where can I go? | ||
|
|
||
| To discuss operating XMPP server software as well as deployment interoperability, there exists the [XMPP Operators channel](operators-rules.md) at [operators@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:operators@muc.xmpp.org?join). Discussion of XMPP Extension Proposals as well as the XMPP standard itself and matters concerning the XMPP Standards Foundation takes place in [xsf@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| To discuss operating XMPP server software as well as deployment interoperability, there exists the [XMPP Operators channel](operators-rules.md) at [operators@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:operators@muc.xmpp.org?join). Discussion of XMPP Extension Proposals as well as the XMPP standard itself and matters concerning the XMPP Standards Foundation takes place in [xsf@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join). | |
| To discuss operating XMPP server software as well as deployment interoperability, there exists the [XMPP Operators channel](/community/channels/operators) at [operators@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:operators@muc.xmpp.org?join). Discussion of XMPP Extension Proposals as well as the XMPP standard itself and matters concerning the XMPP Standards Foundation takes place in [xsf@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join). |
| @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Finally, note that channel membership does not imply any kind of immunity from t | |||
|
|
|||
| ### I want to discuss something that is considered off-topic in this channel, where can I go? | |||
|
|
|||
| To discuss software development related to XMPP, there exists [jdev@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:jdev@muc.xmpp.org?join). Discussion of XMPP Extension Proposals as well as the XMPP standard itself and matters concerning the XMPP Standards Foundation takes place in [xsf@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join). | |||
| To discuss software development related to XMPP, there exists the [XMPP Developers channel](jdev-rules.md) at [jdev@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:jdev@muc.xmpp.org?join). Discussion of XMPP Extension Proposals as well as the XMPP standard itself and matters concerning the XMPP Standards Foundation takes place in [xsf@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| To discuss software development related to XMPP, there exists the [XMPP Developers channel](jdev-rules.md) at [jdev@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:jdev@muc.xmpp.org?join). Discussion of XMPP Extension Proposals as well as the XMPP standard itself and matters concerning the XMPP Standards Foundation takes place in [xsf@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join). | |
| To discuss software development related to XMPP, there exists the [XMPP Developers channel](/community/channels/jdev) at [jdev@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:jdev@muc.xmpp.org?join). Discussion of XMPP Extension Proposals as well as the XMPP standard itself and matters concerning the XMPP Standards Foundation takes place in [xsf@muc.xmpp.org](xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join). |
Ppjet6
reviewed
Nov 18, 2023
|
|
||
| For transgressions solely happening within the XMPP Developers channel, the channel admins are an acceptable first point of contact. | ||
|
|
||
| **Note**: The CoC only applies to XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) members and venues. It does not automatically apply to all members of all XMPP channels. Do not report misconduct in venues outside of the control of the XSF to this room or the XSF Conduct Team, unless an XSF member is involved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe a topic to explore elsewhere, but does the CoC apply to any XSF member anywhere? Or just when they act in quality of XSF member?
|
@mwild1 do you have comments on this or can you approve change suggestions? |
|
I support it in principle, but it looks like there is a bunch of feedback already that hasn't been incorporated, so I think approval is not an option at this time. |
|
@horazont are you still interested in working on this? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is mostly a clone of the operators rules.
This PR is to be seen as a proposal and has not been vetted or proof-read by anyone.