DOC minor improvements in CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file #18188
Conversation
Thank you for the PR @avinash-ak ! |
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@ | |||
# Code of Conduct | |||
|
|||
We are a community based on openness and friendly, didactic, discussions. | |||
We are a community based on openness, friendly, and didactic discussions. |
jnothman
Aug 19, 2020
Member
I don't think this retains the same meaning
I don't think this retains the same meaning
NicolasHug
Aug 19, 2020
Member
We are a community based on openness, as well as friendly and didactic discussions.
Or the original sentence.
We are a community based on openness, as well as friendly and didactic discussions.
Or the original sentence.
I prefer the original to the changes in this pr |
shall i close the PR @jnothman |
I am fine with the current code of conduct. |
Hi @glemaitre which one the modified one or the old one |
Thanks for the PR @avinash-ak just out of curiosity, is your contribution part of a course that requires students to contribute to OSS? |
Hi @NicolasHug no it is not part of the course. I am interested in contributing to OSS. Thank you for the response. |
ok, thanks. I commented here: #18188 (comment) |
I have made the changes @NicolasHug |
thanks @avinash-ak , LGTM! |
That's awesome thank you for the suggestions @NicolasHug . If it is fine could you please merge the PR. Thanks Nicolas :) |
|
||
We aspire to treat everybody equally, and value their contributions. | ||
|
||
Decisions are made based on technical merit and consensus. | ||
|
||
Code is not the only way to help the project. Reviewing pull requests, | ||
answering questions to help others on mailing lists or issues, organizing and | ||
answering questions to help peers on mailing lists or issues, organizing and |
rth
Aug 21, 2020
Member
I'm not sure the word "peers" is right here, I think the previous version with "others" was more general and was fine.
You take two random people who may one day use scikit-learn for any reason, they wouldn't necessarily consider each other as peers.
I'm not sure the word "peers" is right here, I think the previous version with "others" was more general and was fine.
You take two random people who may one day use scikit-learn for any reason, they wouldn't necessarily consider each other as peers.
avinash-ak
Aug 21, 2020
Author
Contributor
Hi @rth i have reverted the changes. if it is fine could you please merge it :) Thanks Roman.
Hi @rth i have reverted the changes. if it is fine could you please merge it :) Thanks Roman.
I think the current version in this PR is slightly clearer than master:
|
Thank you @thomasjpfan if it is fine. Could you please merge the PR |
55e1bac
into
scikit-learn:master
Reference Issues/PRs
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
Any other comments?