Current status:
The terms conda community and conda organization are currently ambiguous as they are often used interchageably in the conda governance docs.
Not only this creates confusion about who/what the governance applies to and in which capacity but by heavily relying on the term conda organization the scope of the existing governance is rather focused or centred around technical items (and code-related assets such as GitHub repositories), leaving the governance and ownership of other essential areas up to interpretation or out of the scope entirely.
For example, the main governance docs state the following in its Manifest section:
This document defines the conda Organization as the body responsible for governing the tools, specifications, and libraries within the conda ecosystem, broadly speaking.
Following, the Code of Conduct uses the term conda organization:
The CoC Committee does not influence behavior and membership in spaces outside the conda Organization. However, if you are being harassed by a member of the conda community outside our spaces, you may still report it to the CoC Committee.
Such a wording leads to questions about who the CoC (and other policies) applies to (i.e. does this apply to all interactions within the GitHub organization or solely to the "body responsible for governing the tools..." per the manifest).
Which limits/muddies the scope and enforcement of the CoC, leading to uncertainties around spaces such as Zulip, mailing lists, and other fora or spaces where the conda community might interact and be present.
While the opening sentence of the governance docs define its scope as:
This document outlines the policies and procedures that manage the conda community.
Recommendations:
- Align on scope and definition of
conda community and conda organization for example who/what are we referring to in which case (and by extension who/which groups are impacted by our governance).
- For example, regarding scope: is “conda and conda-incubator governance” correct? or should this be wider-reaching (i.e. conda community in the broader sense of the word) with provisions specific to the conda and conda-incubator projects/organisations as sections within the overall governance?
- Ensure consistent use of these terms throughout our governance to avoid confusion or ambiguity moving forward.
Current status:
The terms
conda communityandconda organizationare currently ambiguous as they are often used interchageably in the conda governance docs.Not only this creates confusion about who/what the governance applies to and in which capacity but by heavily relying on the term
conda organizationthe scope of the existing governance is rather focused or centred around technical items (and code-related assets such as GitHub repositories), leaving the governance and ownership of other essential areas up to interpretation or out of the scope entirely.For example, the main governance docs state the following in its Manifest section:
Following, the Code of Conduct uses the term
conda organization:Such a wording leads to questions about who the CoC (and other policies) applies to (i.e. does this apply to all interactions within the GitHub organization or solely to the "body responsible for governing the tools..." per the manifest).
Which limits/muddies the scope and enforcement of the CoC, leading to uncertainties around spaces such as Zulip, mailing lists, and other fora or spaces where the conda community might interact and be present.
While the opening sentence of the governance docs define its scope as:
Recommendations:
conda communityandconda organizationfor example who/what are we referring to in which case (and by extension who/which groups are impacted by our governance).