Governance, Contribution Policy, and Code of Conduct.

I was about to comment on the new threads about core governance when I realized that all of them presume some knowledge of the structure we've adopted and have been using for some time in Node Forward.

Without discussing and being able to link to some kind of ongoing documentation I don't think the conversation threads will be very fruitful so I've gone ahead and written them up in this pull request.

They are adapted from Node Forward's fork where they are sections in the CONTRIBUTING file. Here I've put them in to their own files for clearer separation. All direct references to Node Forward have been removed so that this can be adopted by any project without confusion.

The premise is simple: the project employs a simple governance structure that can be the "final word" on contentious issues and, most importantly, owns the *contribution policy*. The contribution policy is intended to be somewhat fluid and adapt over time to the needs of the project. The current one is geared heavily towards growing the contributor base of the project because that's the biggest problem. You can imagine that after the project grows a large cohort of contributors this policy would change to adapt the challenges of distributing work among a larger contributor base.

This separation between *contributor* and *TC member* is a necessary one. Liberalizing the contribution policy has been an effective tool at growing new contributors in Node Forward and in other projects that have been employing similar policies for some time. Of course, contributors who spend a fair amount of time in the project and want to take on additional responsibilities will find themselves on the TC but the direct correlation of commit rights to being part of a sometimes boring and bureaucratic process of managing the project at a higher level is an unnecessary barrier to growing contributors.
> the problem I have with your argument is that you're finding examples where putting the burden of intent on the accused has negative consequences without recognizing or empathizing with the consequences for marginalized people under an inverted system.

Nine times out of ten there's a pretty trivial litmus test for determining their intent when their behavior or comment may be ambiguous. Message them privately stating that you felt offended and see how they respond. The way they handle their response should help suss out the original intent. They might apologize in which case, you can help them understand how they can improve their behavior to no repeat themselves. They might be defensive, in which case you might want to get a second or third opinion. They might be combative, in which case it's looking more likely that they meant to be abusive.

For those cases that don't fit this mold, contact someone you trust and who has a reputation for being impartial to act as a go between to try to get to the root of what happened. 

> That court, at least in this community, leans heavily towards consequences for the privileged.

And herein lies the problem. Is this just? Do the transgressions of many white males before me now make me so culpable by association that I merit being subjected to such a draconian court of public opinion. You're basically defending the position "It's okay if you get unfairly and disproportionately screwed because you're white". 

No. This is as unjust as what the these "marginalized groups" have experienced.

This is not a classical train track moral dilemma where you need to decide between saving the lives of everyone on a train by diverting the train to a track where one human will be sacrificed. We can do better. Next time the court of public opinion decides to persecute someone where the circumstances might be ambiguous, I hope you realize the moral dilemma such a situation has presented you and you do what Atticus Finch did in To Kill a Mockingbird.

> The alternative is a culture which demands proof of intent from a marginalized person offended by someone in a position of power.

No it's not. See my point above about at least making an attempt to determining intent by other means.

> What I'm suggesting is that rather than lament this state of culture, people in privileged positions of power take more responsibility for their actions. Could this person not have said that? 

How about everyone take responsibility for their actions regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.

> And so, you are lamenting the current culture which inflicted harsh penalties on to someone who offended someone without intending to. But what is the alternative? The alternative is a culture which demands proof of intent from a marginalized person offended by someone in a position of power. That would be a culture with basically zero consequences for people in power, offenses would never be reported, and marginalized people would have to accept an environment where they are continually offended.

Again. No, that's not the alternative. These are not either-or options. We can have a culture where there are investigations into what happened that keeps things confidential and tries to determine to the best of everyone's ability what the truth is. This is governance on a software project for crissake. It's not like we're talking about the NSA or the Illuminati or the Mafia here. It's pretty trivial to set up processes where both the accuser and the accused can get two or more impartial people to investigate what happened and determine if ill intent was involved. There's no some evil cabal of white men trying to secretly subvert justice here. 

> but the way I'm working to make that happen is to measure my behavior and refrain from saying potentially offensive shit.

Which you've failed at, illustrating my point. Now imagine if I had a persecution complex and was prone to histrionics? Imagine if this conversation had not occurred in a public forum with all our arguments laid bare for all to see. It pretty easy to imagine that scenarios may arise where the innocent are unjustly punished. However, it appears that that is acceptable if and only if the person was the member of a privileged group.

> You said that you're refraining from mentoring women because you're afraid that you'll offend them. At the same time you're in a progressive enough culture that it has convinced at least some women that it's alright for them to be offended. 

I have no problem with people being offended. In fact I encourage it. What's not okay is a culture disinterested in seeking the truth and making a best faith effort at justice for all involved irrespective of privilege.

I was genuinely bothered by the comment she made, "Apparently you have to have a dick to get hired around here". That's absolutely not an appropriate thing to say. She was upset. I get that. If a guy had said that, they would have been fired. What's the fair way to handle this? Is this ever excusable behavior? Is it only excusable if someone has been been part of a marginalized group? Is it sometimes excusable for either gender, because maybe it was a one time thing and they were having a bad day. I don't know the answer here. All I know is that it creates an environment that I feel is hostile and unsafe and that affects my ability to work. However, that's okay because I'm white and male, right?