Misc. thoughts on previous comments, and a general thought....

> must version # change?

Yes. Otherwise, electronic signatures made on the two "1.0" versions would not match (that, is the hashes would not match). It could be possible to substitute the "other 1.0" and cause someone's previous signature to fail. (Stress "could", haven't looked into this).

Best practice with signed electronic documents? Change the version number when changing the document. (Hmm, this is a best practice of document management in any medium.)

> is there a way of knowing what specific
> version a person signed?

Wow, I hope so! Otherwise, the electronic signature has limited  utility! (In fact, one way to determine this would be to generate hashes of all versions on record and compare those to the hash in the person's signature. This just needs to be made automagic. :->)

> must everyone re-sign?

IMHO, no, as the change is not substantive, that is, is not a change in content. Some might argue that yes, everyone should re-sign, since the document is "different", that is, "not the same one".

Well, that depends on whether you are a human being or a computer: To a computer, the documents are different, since a few bits have changed. To a human, the documents are both different, since a different word is used, AND NOT different, since the meaning and intent are pretty darned clear.

Add in the fact that the Code of Conduct is on the Ubuntu web site and it is pretty clear to most human beings that the documents are the same, one just had a typo.

(There is a temptation in the electronic world to make "perfect evidence" when in the "real world" there is no such thing. We use the best evidence we can, for the circumstances. For example, in many jurisdictions, if the CoC were considered a contract, then private law would apply and the evaluation of evidence would be based on "balance of probabilities" and the "reasonable person test". We would not need perfect evidence, we would need to reasonably establish probable intent.)

Since these electronic processes are being used to support human beings, and not the other way around, IMHO it is unnecessary to re-sign because of a typo that does affect meaning.

Any such change will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, by the CC, with  input from the rest of us, and a policy decision will have to be made. A policy in this area would be a good idea....

It could look like this:

1. All CoC versions must have a revision number, and a canonical version of each revision.

2. The canonical version must be published on the web, and the location of the canonical version must be included in the CoC.

3. All changes to any version of the CoC will result in a new revision number for that version of the CoC.

4. The revision number of any version of the CoC is an integral part of that version of the document.

5. The Community Council will determine the fitness and suitability of any particular revision of the CoC for any particular purpose.

6. Changes to correct spelling, grammar, and presentation in any version of the CoC that do not affect the meaning and intent of the CoC will be considered minor changes and will not invalidate any electronic signature made over previous revisions of that version of the CoC. Community members who signed previous of that version of the CoC will not have to re-sign any updated revisions of that version of the CoC. For greater clarity, an electronic signature made over any such version of the CoC will be considered suitable for the  purposes associated with that version of the CoC.

(This is a policy statement: In practice, the electronic signatures will be different. We are saying that for the purposes of human beings, they are equivalent.)

7. Changes to the intent or meaning of the CoC, such as the addition or removal of content, may require community members to sign the new version prior to participating in new purposes or activities enabled or supported by the new version. The CC will evaluate the need for new signatures on a case-by-case basis. Community members may at all times continue participating in purposes or activities enabled or supported by the particular versions of the CoC they have previously signed.

OK, perhaps wordy and contracty, I'm sure someone can clean it up a bit! IANAL, but I do work in this area, and I get a little verbose from time to time.

When it is cleaned, "versions" and "revisions" may need to be made clearer.