17:00:59 <spotz_> #startmeeting diversity-wg
17:00:59 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Mon Aug  2 17:00:59 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is spotz_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:59 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:59 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'diversity_wg'
17:01:07 <fungi> ahoy!
17:01:25 <spotz_> #topic roll call
17:02:01 <fungi> present and accounted for
17:02:09 <spotz_> We’ll give anyone else a few minutes to join
17:04:52 <spotz_> #topic PTG
17:05:40 <spotz_> So we have a slot 2 hours earlier then we normally have but I stuck to Monday
17:06:04 <fungi> works for me. i'll make sure to have coffee on hand
17:06:37 <spotz_> Yeah and it might be better for anyone in EMEA or APAC
17:07:47 <spotz_> As far as agenda, do we want to offer inclusive naming reviews during that hour?
17:09:17 <fungi> as in work on submitting changes to projects to improve the terminology they're using, or reviewing already proposed changes, both, something else?
17:10:31 <spotz_> Reviewing their plans I think, if they have open reviews we could definitely look at them.
17:10:59 <fungi> i think it might be a useful opportunity to do some research into specific terms and identify how/where they're being used in various projects (opendev's codesearch tool is great for finding arbitrary strings in source code and docs)
17:12:12 <spotz_> Would that hit other projects like Kata? I think they’re hosted on GiitHub
17:12:48 <fungi> it would not, you'd need to run a separate github search in their org to get similar results there
17:13:03 <fungi> but it would be similar and not that hard
17:13:38 <fungi> anyway, that seems like an opportunity for a collaborative activity other than just discussion
17:13:42 <spotz_> Should we be doing that or offering to help others do that?
17:14:07 <fungi> i'm suggesting we extend an invitation to the broader community to assist us with that, coordinating it during the ptg
17:14:33 <fungi> and since we're bright and early on monday, it's an opportunity for setting the tone in various projects' conversations later in the week
17:15:26 <spotz_> Ok that sounds like a plan. And for the OpenStack folks our session is right before and in the same room at the TC and leadership meeting
17:16:20 <fungi> yeah, that's also a great lead-in for them
17:16:50 <fungi> might mean that some of what we talk about would be fresh in folks' minds during the tc discussions too
17:17:50 <spotz_> Yeah and I’ll bring is up in Thursday’s meeting. Getting the other projects to join as well might be an issue
17:19:10 <fungi> i also wonder if we should have a brief discussion about our various codes of conduct
17:19:48 <spotz_> Everyone has their own vs adopting the foundation’s?
17:19:59 <fungi> that may or may not be premature since i know the foundation staff are working on getting legal docs updated for the new foundation name
17:20:12 <fungi> heh, no, the foundation has a bunch of codes of conduct actually
17:20:34 <fungi> #link https://www.openstack.org/legal/ Foundation legal documents
17:21:16 <spotz_> I thought we just had a community one and an events one. I’ll check that out though
17:21:39 <fungi> there are two which are appendices of the bylaws: the first is a coc for foundation directors, officers and staff; the second is a coc for the community. then there is one for each event (which are mostly copies of one another), one for the blog...
17:22:26 <fungi> also a web search turned up this for me, last substantive content edit 11 years ago in 2010
17:22:34 <fungi> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Conduct Old CoC
17:22:52 <fungi> we should probably redirect that to the community coc, it looks like an early draft
17:23:59 <fungi> none of them are "easy" to find either, so we might want to discuss with the foundation about more prominently linking to one or more appropriate cocs, perhaps once they have the update done for the new foundation name?
17:25:06 <fungi> the reason i bring this up, is that we had been talking about the board statement of support for using inclusive terminology, and about publishing it similarly to how the coc is done, but now that i see what an undiscoverable tangle we have there...
17:27:02 <spotz_> No that makes sense as the other topic I had was website as we still don’t have the stance up
17:29:42 <fungi> i guess it would be good to see if we have a timeline for having the coc updated to the new foundation name, and push for having a copy of the community coc and the statement of support for using inclusive language both put somewhere easily discoverable from the main openinfra.dev site and readily linkable from open infrastructure project sites
17:31:53 <spotz_> Ok so our second proposal for PTG is to discuss the CoC, who’s using what and see if they need updates? And easier to find
17:32:31 <fungi> yeah, and that can tie into discussions of publication for the inclusive language statement if its home is still up in the air by then
17:34:21 <fungi> i do think that maintaining the coc and making it easy to find are topics within the working group's remit, since that has strong implications for keeping the communities we serve welcoming and inclusive
17:34:25 <spotz_> Ok sounds good
17:36:07 <spotz_> Last time we looked at the CoC I know nothing got changed. We definitely have some changes
17:36:34 <fungi> i even see a legal licensing issue with it
17:38:01 <fungi> the wiki article i linked earlier says portions of it were copied from the ubuntu coc under a cc-by-sa license, while the version copied into the bylaws which has much of the same (though not identical) wording refers to copying from pycon and django cocs (with no mention of the ubuntu coc)
17:39:21 <spotz_> Ok why don’t we plan on doing some pre-work on the lists and an ether pad  so we have something to discuss at PTG?
17:40:15 <fungi> yep, sounds good
17:42:31 <fungi> it looks like one of ubuntu or django copied from the other when creating their coc (or both copied from a common source) without any attribution
17:42:58 <fungi> so it's probably not our fault that we're missing some appropriate attribution, but it would be good to get to the bottom of
17:43:23 <spotz_> I know we say ours was based on django. CentOS just did one based on Fedora’s new one
17:44:22 <fungi> yeah, we also say we borrowed from pycon's, which says it borrowed from django's
17:45:27 <fungi> the original draft of django's coc was in 2013 though, while the version we had based on ubuntu's was circa 2010 containing a lot of very similar prose, so i think django likely copied from ubuntu without saying so
17:47:01 <spotz_> If we like something else better now might be the time
17:47:40 <fungi> i don't personally take issue with what we've got in the current community coc other than needing to update the foundation name
17:49:52 <spotz_> Ok sounds good
17:53:30 <spotz> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/coc-review
17:54:05 <spotz> Lisa you know we're on OFTC now right?:)
17:54:57 <spotz> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/coc-review
17:57:33 <spotz> Ok Lisa tried to join the meeting on Freenode:)
17:59:56 <spotz> We have 1 minute left I'll help her out in a second, she's following on eavesdroop and typing in the agenda etherpad:) I think we have a good pla leading up to PTG and we can informally meet here or discuss via email
18:01:41 <spotz> fungi: You have anything else to add?
18:01:51 <fungi> nope, thanks!
18:02:41 <spotz> #endmeeting