Update COC to CC 3.0

[bensternthal]

Fixes #1457

I think the questions/concerns folks had with an earlier revision of the contributor covenant are no longer present. This PR updates our COC documentation to reference the 3.0 version of the contributor covenant.

[bensternthal]

To me, this PR qualifies as changing governance so we will leave open for 14 days before merging.

[joesepi]

LGTM. Thanks!

[mcollina]

Adding a soft block because I don't see an explanation on how the objections were resolved

[bensternthal]

@mcollina Good call out.

The objection from @tobie is raised in this comment and is pasted below:

For context, the sentence in question was point 5 of the restricter behaviors: "Violating confidentiality. Sharing or acting on someone’s personal or private information without their permission." As discussed during the CPC call, the intention of that language isn't to prevent information sharing when enforcing the CoC, but the language is confusing and creates opportunities for contesting CoC Team decisions. imho, it should be clarified.

I believe this is addressed in the section under Reporting an Issue:

Community Moderators take reports of violations seriously and will make every effort to respond in a timely manner. They will investigate all reports of code of conduct violations, reviewing messages, logs, and recordings, or interviewing witnesses and other participants. Community Moderators will keep investigation and enforcement actions as transparent as possible while prioritizing safety and confidentiality. In order to honor these values, enforcement actions are carried out in private with the involved parties, but communicating to the whole community may be part of a mutually agreed upon resolution.

If this is not adequate we have the ability to clarify by customizing language in sections if appropriate. @tobie can you advise on if the language is sufficient or if you would like clarification and if so, what text do you suggest?

[mcollina]

If @tobie is ok, I'm ok.

[bensternthal]

Mr. @tobie your expertise is required.

[tobie]

My concern was around how the language could be perceived and instrumentalized. I don't think it has been resolved, but the fact that I'm in the only one to have raised this means it is probably not something to be concerned about. So I think we can and should move forward.

[bensternthal]

@mcollina please see @tobie latest comment.

[bensternthal]

@mcollina based on @tobie last comment are you OK if we merge this?

[mcollina]

@tobie that’s the two of us, that’s why I was checking.

[bensternthal]

@tobie @mcollina We have the option to customize this as we see fit. To move this forward we will need to address your specific objections. To that end can you add specific items that you feel need to be changed as a comment in this thread.

[mcollina]

The term "Community Moderators" is too vague. It should be clarified that this includes both the project moderators and the OpenJS moderation team. As well as any other formal documents OpenJS will have (including our privacy policy: https://openjsf.org/privacy).

Overall, I also find that language is too subjective. I personally find that everyone commits some degree of violation every day, and that this can easily be misused.

[bensternthal]

@mcollina @tobie are you able to attend the working session next week. We'd like to try and resolve/address concerns.

[bensternthal]

Note From CPC Working Session March 10, 2026

Code of Conduct

• Add detail explaining that information shared as part of COC report is not a restricted behavior
• Add detail that COC reports and information are handled in a manner consistent with the OpenJS privacy policy

Overall

• Use lower case "community moderators"

Next Steps

• Update PR with abiove
• Have OpenJS privacy attorney review final language.

[bensternthal]

@mcollina We used the rest of the meeting to create additional clarifications on "Confidentiality & Reporting an Issue". Please review the changes starting from line 110 - line 112.

The only other change made was to use lower case for "community moderators"

Please let us know if you have other changes or clear the merge block if this is good to go. Thanks.

[bensternthal]

Text send for review.

[mcollina]

lgtm

[bensternthal]

Thanks for all the feedback and approvals, we get approval from our internal legal review.