Create CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[jaredpalmer]

In response to the back and forth today. This is our CoC going forward. Period.

#206 (comment)
#206 (comment)

[agilgur5]

I've been considering adding a CoC to TSDX, all of my repos, and all of the templates for quite a while now, but there is a reason that I didn't do so myself: I'd like to mix good parts from various CoCs out there to draft something that addresses several areas and is more detailed, concrete, and specific.

The Contributor Covenant, for example, has really short, somewhat abstract examples that leave it open to significant interpretation or misinterpretation. There's even an example in TSDX itself (edited out specific issue) of using the Contributor Covenant while simultaneously being abusive to several maintainers and core contributors.
In mine and some of my colleagues' experience in management, we've found that concrete examples add a lot more clarity and directly encourage or discourage certain behaviors by illustrating them directly and offering better alternatives from which to improve.

The GitHub Community Forum's Code of Conduct, for example, is still somewhat abstract, but lists more examples and is quite descriptive on both the positive and unacceptable sides (including staying on-topic, tidiness, discrimination, bullying, etc)

I'm not sure why this PR was also merged without review...

[agilgur5]

If you want to use the Contributor Covenant, I think several of these should have a clear "Good/Bad" example that specifically illustrates said behavior so there is less ambiguity.

This was very painful, but I went through some abusive instances in TSDX's history that occurred to multiple maintainers and paraphrased to make examples:

* Snarky, sarcastic, condescending, or passive-aggressive behavior:
❌  Bad: "Will you fix this issue, or should I just not use this library?"
✅  Good: "I'd like to use this library, but this issue is a blocker for me right now."

❌  Bad: "How many more breaking bugs do you need?"
✅  Good: "These bugs have been very frustrating for me, so I would appreciate if changes respected SemVer more carefully and testing were a higher priority".

❌  Bad: "_Really_?"
✅  Good: "I believe this line doesn't match up with what you said, but correct me if I'm wrong"

* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
❌  Bad: "You shouldn't have closed my issue, you're a jerk"
✅  Good: "I disagree that it should be closed and think this issue is substantial for these reasons [...]. Maybe this will be reconsidered down the line"

❌  Bad: "Who put _you_ in charge??"
✅  Good: "I disagree with this approach and think it could be improved in these ways [...]. Maybe this can be reconsidered on that basis"

❌  Bad: "You're uninformed and don't know what you're talking about. Your opinion is wrong. I'll take my chances with other libraries."
✅  Good: "Here are some examples that illustrate my point [...]. I disagree with this opinion and think the reverse trade-offs are better to make. I hope these examples can better inform the community's decisions, but I feel strongly enough about these trade-offs that I'll be exploring other approaches."

On the positive side, here's a few other examples:

❌  Bad: "End of story."
❌  Bad: "Period."
❌  Bad: "My word is final."
✅  Good: "Here's a few reasons why I don't think that is a good approach [...]. The examples and evidence here are not currently enough to sway my opinion, but if there is more community support, maybe it can be reconsidered then."

❌  Bad: "I'm not going to use that"
❌  Bad: "I don't like that"
❌  Bad: "That's a bad option"
✅  Good: "I don't agree with that option because of these trade-offs: [...]. If more positive trade-offs outweigh the cons, maybe I'll reconsider"

[agilgur5]

Period.

This is an unnecessary and condescending remark that I believe violates the Contributor Covenant... in a PR that adds the Contributor Covenant. I don't appreciate the condescending and hypocritical remarks you've made a few times to me now.

#206 (comment)
#206 (comment)

That user made a passive-aggressive comment after I simply marked their issue as duplicate. They then went to a totally unrelated thread (which I don't believe is "best for the community") to misleadingly attack me. We both agreed those were attacks as well.

I defended myself, pointed out the evidence and effort against their inaccuracies, and pointed out the attacks. I did not attack that user. That user violated this CoC a number of times while I pointed out their violations.

Defending myself is not the same attacking someone, so I don't appreciate this false equivalence and victim-blame. I believe victim-blaming is quite against the intent of the Contributor Covenant. I'm not sure what I did to deserve that, and I don't think anyone deserves to be victim-blamed.

I'm asking again that you please consider how your words and actions have and continue to significantly damage my mental health and what that means for me and the community.

[agilgur5]

I'm currently the only active maintainer and am unaffiliated with Formium -- nor consented to this repo being under a for-profit business's org -- so this feels backward to me.

In this instance, you also responded first by victim-blaming me first before investigating, then deleted your own comment after investigating, then proceeded to edit this to add a condescending remark here followed by a false equivalence victim-blame. I think that is very concerning and those actions cause significant damage to my mental health. It sounds hypocritical that someone actively violating the CoC would be policing others' actions with respect to that same CoC