Now that a CoC committee has been established, I wonder what the relation is between the CoC and the Phabricator Etiquette (which was also written by many folks.
- Is the CoC in addition to the Etiquette? Does it more or less succeed it? Some Phab-specific disruptive activity listed in the Etiquette, such as repeatedly changing the "status and priority fields" of a task, while "Priority should normally be set by product managers, maintainers, community liaisons, or developers who plan to work on the task, or by the bugwrangler or experienced community members", is likely not covered by the CoC, so I guess it's in addition.
- Other activity, such as "Criticize ideas, not people. A healthy amount of constructive criticism and vibrant debate helps to improve our software and is encouraged." or "Thoughts unrelated to the topic of the report (for example, meta-level discussions on priorities in general or on whether a new extension is wanted at all) should go to the appropriate mailing lists, wiki talk pages, or separate reports." however touch aspects that I see covered by the CoC. Which makes me wonder whether the Etiquette text welcomes amendment to explicitly mention the applicability of the CoC.
- Defacto (apart from obvious spammers / vandalism etc) @Aklapper has been the person interpreting the Etiquette ("In the case of persistent disregard of these guidelines, ping a Phabricator administrator") and potentially disabling Phabricator accounts due to violation. For the records, this has happened about 5 or 6 times in the last 3 years.
- There is no technical possibility to apply a temporary block so once a Phab account is disabled it's by default unlimited.
- There is no clear path how to appeal. Again this might not be a problem that the CoC committee needs to care about at all, however I'd appreciate thoughts how to improve this. (There have been users whose accounts I have re-enabled after their request and also users whose accounts I have not re-enabled so far.) But it's all personal judgment of a single person (@Aklapper) and it's mostly the same person who also applied the account disabling. Which does not feel like the best setup in the long run.