The Forgejo initiative has publicly declared interest in develops a software forge with accessibility concerns, among other features.
Under this premise I propose to add Accessibility as a core value of the initiative:
*All Forgejo developments will be made considering the ability
to access of people with disabilities or functional impairment as a condition of
equality of opportunities and inclusion, understanding Accessibility as the
quality of being able to access with assistive technology.*
Please feel free to comment, improve, suggest, object or approve this proposal taking into account your own concerns or level of agreement.
Co-authored-by: fsologureng <sologuren@estudiohum.cl>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/179
Co-authored-by: Felipe Leopoldo Sologuren Gutiérrez <fsologureng@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Felipe Leopoldo Sologuren Gutiérrez <fsologureng@noreply.codeberg.org>
I requested an admin to demote me from Forgejo Development, as mods can't do that themself.
Co-authored-by: Arnold Schrijver <circlebuilder-codeberg@engagingspaces.io>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/189
Co-authored-by: Arnold Schrijver <circlebuilder@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Arnold Schrijver <circlebuilder@noreply.codeberg.org>
So far, the decision-making guide is a brief very simplified one.
This PR:
- Improves the simplified guide
- Adds a full detailed version of the decision-making process, to help everyone make non-trivial decisions together, and so that even if I disappear, the project has the tools to continue, learn, evolve, flourish
- Tweaks the table in AGREEMENTS.md based on earlier feedback
Clarification: This PR isn't making a new agreement/decision, it's mostly just expanding the decision-making guide, and we can continue to try the guide in Forgejo and see how it goes and improve it as needed. Or even throw it away entirely if it really doesn't work.
It's not a command forcing you to make decisions in a certain way. It's a helpful resources giving you a way to make decisions together. If you know what you're doing and you don't need a guide, that's fine.
# The Request
If you have **limited time to read** the guide:
Can you **skim** through it and see if there's anything that stands out, that **bothers/concerns** you or that you disagree with? And comment if yes. Otherwise, do you trust me and **willing that we try the guide in Forgejo** (despite not thoroughly reading it) and see how it goes, and let it improve via ongoing feedback, and make an official community approval at a later time? (Worst case, if it turns out to be garbage, we can delete it)
If you **don't have time to read** the guide:
Do you trust me and **willing that we try the guide in Forgejo** (despite not reading the very long detailed sections that this PR adds) and see how it goes, and let it improve via ongoing feedback, and make an official community approval at a later time? (Worst case, if it turns out to be garbage, we can delete it)
If you **have time to thoroughly read** the guide:
Can you go through it and review / give feedback? Including *questions* if there's anything there that's unclear or confusing.
If you don't have enough trust in me to answer yes to the questions above, that's fine and please don't hesitate to say so <3 I know it's hard to trust a stranger landing some huge document out of nowhere. We'll figure out a pathway to togetherness. Even if it means simply closing this PR without merging anything.
Co-authored-by: fr33domlover <fr33domlover@riseup.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/148
The Forgejo initiative has publicly declared that it develops a software forge with a focus on privacy, among other features.
Under this premise I propose to add Privacy as a core value of the initiative:
*All Forgejo developments will be made considering data protection by default and by design for all its users, understanding Privacy as a condition of human autonomy and self-governance*.
Please feel free to comment, improve, suggest, object or approve this proposal taking into account your own concerns or level of agreement.
Co-authored-by: fsologureng <sologuren@estudiohum.cl>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/178
Co-authored-by: Felipe Leopoldo Sologuren Gutiérrez <fsologureng@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Felipe Leopoldo Sologuren Gutiérrez <fsologureng@noreply.codeberg.org>
In accordance to the decision making process each applicant posted an
issue and actively reach out to the Forgejo community to get
feedback. During a period of four weeks no reservation or concerns
were expressed regarding their application and they can now become
legitimate member of the security team.
Closes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/140
Co-authored-by: Loïc Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/174
Co-authored-by: Loïc Dachary <dachary@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Loïc Dachary <dachary@noreply.codeberg.org>
Now that a decision making process is in place, as pledged at the
begining of Forgejo, I step down from all teams I belong to. I will
apply to become a member of the team in a way that meets the agreement
of the Forgejo community. This is an important step towards a
democratic governance and I'm happy this is happening.
I am not stepping down from the security team because:
* It is critical to keep the Forgejo user safe
* I have already applied to become a member
Co-authored-by: Loïc Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/173
Co-authored-by: Loïc Dachary <dachary@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Loïc Dachary <dachary@noreply.codeberg.org>
First version of agreement for PR moderation according to discussed in #124
Co-authored-by: fsologureng <sologuren@estudiohum.cl>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/129
Co-authored-by: Felipe Leopoldo Sologuren Gutiérrez <fsologureng@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Felipe Leopoldo Sologuren Gutiérrez <fsologureng@noreply.codeberg.org>
