docs: remove old CoC info + update reporting info for CoC violations

[lance]

• 🧹 removes outdated Code of Conduct information from README.md
• 🎁 adds reporting information to the bare CoC document, with Steering Committee as first line of defense

Fixes: #968 (comment)

@rhuss PTAL does this need to be added/updated to all repos in the org and in knative-sandbox?

[vaikas]

I see the link to COC has been updated, so this LGTM. Just adding a hold so others can chime in just in case they have concerns (remove at will if there are none).
/lgtm
/approve
/hold

[lance]

@vaikas what I'm really curious about, though, is whether we will continue to use the code-of-conduct@knative.team email address to handle reporting, as it used to be documented here:

community/CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md

Lines 62 to 73 in cfd6cdc

	## Enforcement
	Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
	reported by emailing code-of-conduct@knative.team. All complaints will be reviewed and
	investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and
	appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain
	confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of
	specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
	TOC members who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may
	face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the
	project's leadership.

#968 is obsolete/irrelevant if all CoC violations go through the CNCF reporting structure. But I think it's perhaps better to restore some of the old enforcement text in our CoC, so that the first line of defense is Knative SC, but if that's insufficient or sensitive, issues can be elevated to CNCF enforcement. WDYT?

[vaikas]

Yeah, understood :) I went to look for what it says earlier and noticed it's a redirect, and indeed it's a pointer to the CNCF documentation. I don't see a point in having a separate email for reporting to Knative ones if we point to CNCF that has it's own set of reporting instructions?

For other projects, please contact the CNCF staff via [conduct@cncf.io](mailto:conduct@cncf.io). You can expect a response within three business days.

It explicitly lists kubernetes as it's own project, but I don't see any others. Are there other projects that handle their own COC despite being in the CNCF?

I think since we're adhering to CNCF COC, then having them (assuming they are willing to do it) sounds like it would be probably holistically a more consistent way to handle this across the whole CNCF eco system?

[lance]

I took a look at buildpacks/pack to see what they are doing and they are doing their own thing entirely (which I find odd). https://github.com/buildpacks/.github/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[vaikas]

Unless there's a really good reason that I don't understand which is entirely possible, I'd rather have us adhere and use the existing processes for dealing with violations. Seems simpler, more consistent, and don't have to worry about things diverging.

[lance]

Unless there's a really good reason that I don't understand which is entirely possible, I'd rather have us adhere and use the existing processes for dealing with violations. Seems simpler, more consistent, and don't have to worry about things diverging.

I'm OK with that. Maybe we can formalize that decision at the SC call tomorrow and then I will close this.

[lance]

@vaikas updated per our latest understanding

[vaikas]

/lgtm
/approve

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lance, vaikas

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [lance,vaikas]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[vaikas]

/unhold

[vaikas]

Sounds good :) That was just like my opinion man :)

…

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:36 AM Lance Ball ***@***.***> wrote: Unless there's a really good reason that I don't understand which is entirely possible, I'd rather have us adhere *and* use the existing processes for dealing with violations. Seems simpler, more consistent, and don't have to worry about things diverging. I'm OK with that. Maybe we can formalize that decision at the SC call tomorrow and then I will close this <#968>. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1016 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACWB45A4WRQLGBXSC5ZTQO3VGA6A7ANCNFSM5TZM42OA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>