purpose of signing is not documented

[ԜаӀtеr Ⅼарсһуnѕkі]

Signing the CoC is a requirement for many activities within the community, most notably membership. however, the value of doing this is undocumented.

It could be suggested that only by signing does one agree to abide by the terms. However, the language of the CoC suggests that it applies wherever Ubuntu applies: "The Code of Conduct governs how we behave in public or in private whenever the project will be judged by our actions. We expect it to be honoured by everyone who represents the project officially or informally, claims affiliation with the project, or participates directly."

This confusion (as well as the difficulty of signing) invariably leads some to discount even bothering with it. In the worst case, they expect that by not signing it, they do not agree with it, and feel they can act however they want.

Clear documentation would solve this problem and I believe doing it within the CoC would be ideal. I think that it would be wise to suggest that while the CoC applies everywhere, signing is a more explicit acknowledgement of it and a statement of understanding its content. I would also suggest that it would be good to suggest that with signing comes an ambassador role where one seeks to encourage others to sign, works to help those that haven't to understand it, and takes it upon themselves to attempt to mediate or escalate violations of the CoC.