Read on Twitter
As frequent @djangocon speaker and a @django Software Foundation member, I have weird feelings about the Django CoC being listed as an inspiration for this. https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1318357948867866624
For one thing, there seems to be a pretty clear founder exemption in Mission Protocol
"project leaders have the responsibility to clarify and interpret the mission, as well as the intentions and standards in this code of conduct, in order to maintain mission focus."
"project leaders have the responsibility to clarify and interpret the mission, as well as the intentions and standards in this code of conduct, in order to maintain mission focus."
Compare this to the @djangoproject CoC which states:
"This code applies equally to founders"
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
"This code applies equally to founders"
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
Additionally, the reporting guidelines are pretty sparse. There's a large onus on the reporter, and the project founder gets final say in all issues.
This is, of course, de facto how a lot of projects are run.
It's also a great way to make sure that your contributors look and think only like you, which does not a healthy project make.
It's also a great way to make sure that your contributors look and think only like you, which does not a healthy project make.
My receipts here are being on the PSF Conduct WG for almost 3 years, and seeing what happens when there's a cut-out in conduct work for people at the top.
I believe in being mission-driven. Every job I've taken has been about a mission I could believe in and sink my teeth into, from Eventbrite to Stripe to Patreon to Trim.
Ask folks at some of those companies and they'll tell you how I burned for the mission.
Ask folks at some of those companies and they'll tell you how I burned for the mission.
But when you say the mission is more important than the people who make it, and the politics that affect them, you're not being focused.
You're being lazy.
You're being lazy.
