Remove repo specific CoC file.

[desrosj]

This removes the repository specific CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file in favor of the newly added version maintained as the organization's default within the WordPress/.github repository.

While this file will not be included in git clones, it will be displayed on the repository's main page and anywhere else GitHub includes a Code of Conduct link.

This change enables more consistent messaging for the community code of conduct, which is adapted from the same Contributor Covenant currently used for the CoC file being removed. It also allows the file to be updated in one location for all repositories under the WordPress organization.

See WordPress/.github#1.

[jrfnl]

@desrosj In principle agreed, but the file as per WordPress/.github#1 is a very abbreviated version of the CoC, which I don't think conveys the right message.

Either that file should include the complete CoC as per https://make.wordpress.org/handbook/community-code-of-conduct/ or it should just be a simple paragraph pointing to the handbook page containing the CoC.

Anything in between will lead to confusion and can cause problems with enforcement.

I also wonder if the CoC should include some empowerment for repo managers/maintainers regarding behaviour in a specific repo ? At times swift action can be needed and while a diligent investigation via the IRT is always a good thing, harm can be experienced in the mean time when such a process is long and time-consuming.

[desrosj]

Thanks @jrfnl!

The goal with WordPress/.github#1 was to create a brief file and link out to the full CoC page in the handbook, which it does after the first paragraph.

I'm going to defer these questions to @angelasjin, though. While I worked with her on the abbreviated file and I'm helping her by creating these PRs to show the default file in all the organization's repositories, those are things that she'll need to weigh in on.

[angelasjin]

Hello! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, @jrfnl, and for tagging me in, @desrosj.

The CoC does include an Enforcement Responsibilities section, which states the following:

Community leaders (such as team reps, component maintainers, organizers, and project leads)  are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of acceptable behavior; they will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.

Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, documentation edits, issues, videos, presentations, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate.

Does this cover what you were hoping to see? If you would like to see edits, I recommend that we make them to the version in the Contributor Handbook as that is our primary source. To suggest edits, you can email [email protected].

[jrfnl]

@angelasjin Thanks for pitching in, but your reply does not address my concerns.

[angelasjin]

Hey @jrfnl! It sounds like I might have misunderstood your concern then. Let me double check my understanding before I try to give you another response?

It seemed like you were looking for repo managers/maintainers to be able to take some faster actions when you see inappropriate behaviors in repos, and hoped to see the CoC include language to that effect, is that correct? Are the additional concerns?

[jrfnl]

Hey @jrfnl! It sounds like I might have misunderstood your concern then. Let me double check my understanding before I try to give you another response?

It seemed like you were looking for repo managers/maintainers to be able to take some faster actions when you see inappropriate behaviors in repos, and hoped to see the CoC include language to that effect, is that correct? Are the additional concerns?

See: #2423 (comment)

[angelasjin]

Are you referring to the part about the CoC being abbreviated? As Jon noted, and I agree, the goal was to create a brief file and link to the full CoC page in the handbook, which it does twice. I personally feel like this works and sends the right message, but perhaps we disagree.