Add code of conduct minimal neutral guarantees

[ariard]

This PR aims to address my current concerns about the limited transparency and potential deadlock issues of the current code of conduct.

It introduces two simple changes a) renew of the code of conduct team every 2 years with a transparent process opened to the whole LDK community and b) in case of deadlock about code application 2 additional people from the LDK community should join the team to adjudicate the case.

The first rule guarantees transparency and neutrality of the LDK project, and the second rule aims to solve deadlock in case of code application. This is the minimal set of changes I’m requesting on my side to respect the code of conduct in the lack of concrete issues arising, next changes about the code can be discussed in December 2024 when nomination happen (or December 2025 fine to work on 3 years cycle ?) in function of growth of the LDK community and the needs by that time.

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for lightningdevkit ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	244e42188e14bfdd57ef2e135b338e0e7dc2bc6d
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/lightningdevkit/deploys/64c056e0305fd500088ee552
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-213--lightningdevkit.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[ariard]

@devrandom @valentinewallace @TheBlueMatt

As you’re the current code of conduct team members, I’ll request your individual review on the proposed changes. If you’re NACK about them, I would like to have a reasoned ground why the proposed changes are not adequate, fair or neutral, like one would do to mark his disagreement with a technical PR.

As I’ve been an active contributor longer than 2 of you and with an equivalent technical proof-of-work, I think I’m legitimate to submit the proposed changes and ask for them. I think the changes are reasonable with the resources the community is willing to commit to solve conflicts.

If you have comments on the formulation of the changes, thanks to leave review comments, I’ll address them.

[ariard]

@ConorOkus @jkczyz @dunxen

As you have ACKed the original code of conduct PR, if the changes proposed here sounds unreasonable to you, thank to express an opinion.

[ariard]

Updated at fa82902 with new suggestion to address Matt’s feedback and bumped to 3y period.

[moneyball]

Concept ACK for: a) term limits. b) requiring some type of proof of technical work such as what is proposed for the reasons cited.

I think we should consider a way to do a staggered rotation though so that the original 3 members are not rotated out at the same time. A staggered approach allows for more natural passing on of learnings while still gaining the benefit of new people.

[ariard]

I think we should consider a way to do a staggered rotation though so that the original 3 members are not rotated out at the same time. A staggered approach allows for more natural passing on of learnings while still gaining the benefit of new people.

Staggered approach is a good idea for natural passing of learnings, I'll propose an update in that sense soon.

[ariard]

Updated at 244e4218

Latest proposed changes include:

• introduce staggered approach (address steve feedback)
• defines deadlock (address duncan feedback)
• add the option of a new nomination in case of a CoC member stepping down (address duncan feedback)
• define an active LDK contributor as someone with 10 commits during the 2 years before nomination event

The latest change (i.e a active LDK contributor is someone with technical proof-of-work) is somehow inspired by how the Linux community is electing the technical advisory board (which is enforcing their CoC), where the votees must have three kernel commits during the last years, as documented here.

If there are more feedbacks, I’ll address them with calm and patience. In the lack of opposing feedback and if the latest changes are judged reasonable, I think this can land after one or two more weeks to let people time to share their opinion.

[ariard]

Thanks for the additional comments here, I’ll fix them soon. I still care building a better project culture by listening to everyone viewpoint taking all time we have to to get there.