chore: add new issue templates

[ovflowd]

This PR updates the current ad-hoc meeting issue template to use the GitHub Forms feature and adds a new "generic" issue template for general requests to the CPC.

[mhdawson]

LGTM

[joesepi]

@ovflowd - thanks for doing this. I've been meaning to work on issue templates in this repo for a long time.

Can you add these to a personal repo and link to them in this PR so that we can see them in action? I haven't done issue templates in yaml so its not clear to me all that is going on here.

Also, it seems like there are some errors being reported by Github. See https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/d1fc0242eae73124e7b67eaba32d77469677cd33/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ad-hoc-meeting.yaml

[ovflowd]

Hey Joe, of course! Let me create a placeholder repo for CPC stuff and create a preview for that 🙃

[ovflowd]

@joesepi I've jsut fixed the templates, if you preview them now, they should work!

[tobie]

Thanks for offering to set this up. I think it's great to make it easier for folks to reach out to the CPC. I do want us to be careful not to add unnecessary process or formalism for the sake of formalism and to make sure that we direct requests to the right places (e.g. when it comes to ops or legal).

[mcollina]

lgtm

[ovflowd]

cc @tobie if you could re-review 👀

[tobie]

Still -1 on the CoC for reasons explained inline.

Would be good to get @bensternthal's review for the ad-hoc meeting template (to make sure he has all of what he needs here).

[tobie]

Apologies for not grouping the second set of comments and spamming your inbox. :(

[ovflowd]

(@tobie) To iterate on

I feel that if you're the one raising the concern I would rather have you giving other options that are favourable for both sides 😅

I meant to say that in this case I just have no other suggestion besides simply being neutral and removing the CoC mention. Even tho I wish I was smart enough to find alternatives...

On another note I've added a new file config.yaml 🙇

[ljharb]

To be clear, I think that if we aren't putting the CoC front and center at every opportunity, we've failed at making an inclusive community - I do not understand the pushback to this.

[tobie]

To be clear, I think that if we aren't putting the CoC front and center at every opportunity, we've failed at making an inclusive community - I do not understand the pushback to this.

As explained in an inline comment (and thanks to @ljharb's help for helping me identify the issue more clearly), my pushback was mostly focused on the in-group/out-group tension generated by only reminding newcomers of the CoC. I'd recommend instead (as I suggested inline) to create a direct link to the CoC page in the config.yml file for folks who want to report a CoC violation. If the intent is to demonstrate to newcomers that we have a CoC and that we enforce it, making it easy to report a violation seems more impactful than merely asking them to behave.

I'm furthermore extremely wary of simple solutions to complex problems.

Both the Linux Foundation's 2021 DEI Survey Report and NLnet Foundation's Diversity and Inclusion Guide outline a much broader and thorough approach to DEI than "putting the CoC front and center at every opportunity." In fact, the LF's report specifically warns that approaches which rely on "signaling alone and fail to implement an inclusive mindset may continue to alienate minority developers."

We should focus on completing our pending CoC work to make it easy for people to report CoC issues and make sure that our travel fund request process doesn't exclude our most vulnerable members due to privacy and safety concerns. And if we really care about creating an inclusive community, we should dig into both of the documents linked above and decide to implement some of the propositions laid out in them.

[ljharb]

Asking them to behave has FAR more impact than asking them to report a violation. Why the pushback to asking everyone to behave, frequently?

[tobie]

Asking them to behave has FAR more impact than asking them to report a violation. Why the pushback to asking everyone to behave, frequently?

With all due respect, you’re not engaging with the issues I raised and are engaging with a straw-person instead.

Also, this pull request is about improving issue templates. If we want to improve DEI, we should open a dedicated issue, discuss it there and decide on a coordinated plan based on research, documented best practices, and input from underrepresented minorities. The risk, otherwise, is exactly what would have happened here: performative DEI that’s potentially harmful (here, by singling out newcomers).

[ljharb]

The issues you've raised are largely things I agree with - signalling obviously isn't sufficient - but that doesn't mean it can be absent. An easy way to report is great! But before we tell people how to report, we'd have to tell them WHAT to report.

I also agree we shouldn't single out newcomers - we should treat everyone equally as needing constant reminders of the CoC and how to report issues with it.

Put another way, there simply ARE no "adults in the room", and thus nobody should be relied upon to "just know better" - we should be very explicit and always assume a need for education.

[ovflowd]

Also, this pull request is about improving issue templates. If we want to improve DEI, we should open a dedicated issue, discuss it there and decide on a coordinated plan based on research, documented best practices, and input from underrepresented minorities. The risk, otherwise, is exactly what would have happened here: performative DEI that’s potentially harmful (here, by singling out newcomers).

Aren't we overcomplicating things here? I get your concerns, and I also get that we should validate those concerns. But from where comes the premise that having a reminder of the CoC on the header of the Issue template would create any of those concerns you mentioned? Is there any proven data that adding a reminder of the CoC (or not adding it) makes people from DEI and under-represented minorities feel more included/welcomed?

I want as much as you (and I bet Jordan the same) to have a level-headed discussion here, and we all have the same goals. But at least I need to understand why this constant pushback (here, I agree with Jordan).

From the LF documents you provided, it sounded like they recommend the reference to the CoC to be added as much as possible...

It is, of course my interpretation, so please forgive me 🙇

In the end, again, I'm fine leaving this out (the CoC mention), but I believe that both me an Jordan would love to better understand your points :) (I feel that's what Jordan is actually asking for)

[tobie]

If you want to discuss DEI please file a dedicated issue so that folks who are directly impacted by these issues can be aware that such a conversation is happening.

[bensternthal]

I had some minor suggestions for the ad-hoc-meeting template. Outside of those, this looks good and would be easy for me to use. Nice work!

[ovflowd]

@tobie sorry but that’s not a fair ask when it sounds like you’re not answering the questions both me and @ljharb are asking here 😅

But for the sake of our own mental health (and productivity and awareness for other people), I’m going to open a new issue so we can discuss that there, and let’s leave this PR as it is without the CoC mentioning and we can revisit that later.

Could you kindly approve this PR? 🙃

[ljharb]

@tobie i'm not discussing DEI, i'm discussing "nothing good can be expected happen unless the CoC is pushed in everyone's faces as much as possible". That requires it be present on the issue templates, which is exactly what this PR is for.

[tobie]

i'm not discussing DEI, i'm discussing "nothing good can be expected happen unless the CoC is pushed in everyone's faces as much as possible"

I think that's a very strong statement to make and needs to be backed up with data, or at least supported by folks who identify as members of underrepresented minorities.

I've heard from two people outside of this community, both members of underrepresented minorities, that they had never once felt supported by codes of conduct, and had actually had them weaponized against them.

To be clear, I'm absolutely not suggesting that we should be dropping our CoC or anything of that nature, just that DEI is a complex issue that requires thoughtfulness, listening, and carefully consideration to avoid unintentionally causing harm.

I also do want to kindly point out that without intervention, this PR would have been causing harm by singling out newcomers to this community instead of creating a welcoming environment. I understand that everyone's intent was good but ultimately, impact is what matters, not intent.

In the future, I'd really appreciate if DEI-related initiatives were vetted by those for which they are destined before being pushed forward as per the age-old slogan "Nothing about us without us."

[ljharb]

I totally agree about the complexity and nuance of DEI, and that singling out newcomers is potentially (but not objectively) harmful, and that CoCs can be weaponized if not worded properly and enforced properly, where "properly" is both complicated and subjective.

[ovflowd]

I also do want to kindly point out that without intervention, this PR would have been causing harm by singling out newcomers to this community instead of creating a welcoming environment. I understand that everyone's intent was good but ultimately, impact is what matters, not intent.

And for that I appreciate your thoughtfulness here :)

To be clear, I'm absolutely not suggesting that we should be dropping our CoC or anything of that nature, just that DEI is a complex issue that requires thoughtfulness, listening, and carefully consideration to avoid unintentionally causing harm.

I wonder what were these projects and what their CoC was. I agree that CoCs and moderation teams can cause harm. Hence we definitely need to be very careful with these!

[ovflowd]

I just wanted to champion @tobie again for his immense input and support with code reviews and suggestions and all the other reviewers for your time 🙇