contributor_covenant VS cortx

While you are free to write your own or adopt one from another repository, project, or organization you respect, there exists a code of conduct written and maintained by the community known as the Contributor Covenant.

Many Open Source projects have adopted the Contributor Covenant as their code of conduct. Check this page to see a list of adopters.

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ is (was?) the most widely adopted code of conduct in FOSS, initially drafted by a Ruby contributor, who also happens to be transgender if that's pertinent information to you. It's the genesis seed from which all this code of conduct madness stems from. Personally I'd stick with "be excellent to each other" or "say what you want, just don't insult other contributors" or something vague, ambiguous and universally understood as that. I'm not really a fan of rigorous social rules, so my view on this starts from that position.

You can adapt the guidelines provided by https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ to create your guideline.

The Contributor Covenant that the maintainer removed to "reclaim polymc from the leftoids" was added in February: https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/pull/178. You can view a list of other communities that have adopted the covenant on their website.

For reference, the Code of Conduct they used is basically the same as this one: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/

Please follow the Contributor Covenant

As your audience grows, it is vital that you define clear rules to create a safe environment for everyone to participate. A common way of doing this is to define a code of conduct (CoC), which sets some basic guidelines on what kind of community interaction will not be tolerated. We decided to stick to well-established frameworks and based our CoC on the Contributor Covenant.

Those aren't the only ways I could see things happen, but that represents a few points on the spectrum. Having been participating in the English Wikipedia community since the early days, I know that collaborative writing on a worldwide scale is hard, and leads to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Hence the reason why things like the Contributor Covenant came out, and why Linus Torvalds took such a long time accepting something. Note, things labeled "Code of Conduct" and "Contributor Covenant" are one small slice of governance. Dealing with things like the ideal public transit system create a massive extra layer of complexity. Governance, in general, is difficult.

This is what we did: https://github.com/Seagate/cortx/tree/main/metrics

I keep hoping some day the drives will have their own networking built in. Kioxia, a Toshiba spin off, announced a network-attached NVMe-oF drive last September[1], and I seem to recall one of the major drive players had similar intents a bit back... ah yes, the Seagate Kinetic drives with dual 1Gbit[2] & an object storage OS built in to the drive. These days Seagate seems to be pushing a software platform CORTX[3], which I hope some day perhaps has hardware products too (but right now seems to be for classic linux-based network appliances)

Ideally we start using 5 or 10Gbit ethernet for these cases. We could continue to treat these drives like they are direct attached, even though they are network attached, and either have one computer running RAID, or have Ceph and a bunch of computers running it's distributed system to tap the drives.

Ideally though, we need new clustered file-systems, where any computer can read the drives. That is, I'd guess, a long way off. Legacy devices (home media players) would need to go through some kind of legacy gateway.

[1] https://business.kioxia.com/en-us/news/2020/ssd-20200922-2.h...

[2] https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/MayurShelty_Seagate...

[3] https://github.com/Seagate/cortx