NEWS for 0.10.0

NEWS for 0.10.0

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

I’ve looked at the 2,200+ commits since 0.9.0 (!) to update ‘NEWS’,
trying to keep it high-level and readable (nobody’s gonna read it if
it’s too long ;-)).

You’re welcome to check what’s in there, making sure your favorite
feature or bug-fix appears, and posting changes!

The goal is to have everything ready on Monday evening.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Mathieu Lirzin]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
> index ec92990..0e907ba 100644
> --- a/NEWS
> +++ b/NEWS
[...]
> -* Changes in 0.9.1 (since 0.9.0)
> +* Changes in 0.10.0 (since 0.9.0)
> +
> +GNU Guix adopted a contributor code of conduct, see ‘CODE-OF-CONDUCT’ in the
> +source tree.

I think it would be reasonable to integrate this news in the current
scheme by not making it top level.  What about moving this news in a
category "Contribution" or "Community"?

While speaking about code of conducts I have found sometimes ago an
alternative version which achieves the same expected effect as the
current one but in a more consensual way:

  https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/Foundation/CodeOfConduct?action=show&redirect=CodeOfConduct

Even if I know I belong to the minority who disagree with the
“Contributor Covenant” ideas, I think GNOME code of conduct would fit
better in Guix because it will not associate GNU with a movement using
the term “Open Source” and promoting Github usage.

WDYT?

Thanks,

-- 
Mathieu Lirzin

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Leo Famulari]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 07:45:48PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I’ve looked at the 2,200+ commits since 0.9.0 (!) to update ‘NEWS’,
> trying to keep it high-level and readable (nobody’s gonna read it if
> it’s too long ;-)).
> 
> You’re welcome to check what’s in there, making sure your favorite
> feature or bug-fix appears, and posting changes!

There is a typo in this line:

*** ‘guix environment --container’ gracefully handles abnormal exists

s/exists/exits

> 
> The goal is to have everything ready on Monday evening.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
> 

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Ludovic Courtès]

Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
>> index ec92990..0e907ba 100644
>> --- a/NEWS
>> +++ b/NEWS
> [...]
>> -* Changes in 0.9.1 (since 0.9.0)
>> +* Changes in 0.10.0 (since 0.9.0)
>> +
>> +GNU Guix adopted a contributor code of conduct, see ‘CODE-OF-CONDUCT’ in the
>> +source tree.
>
> I think it would be reasonable to integrate this news in the current
> scheme by not making it top level.  What about moving this news in a
> category "Contribution" or "Community"?

Good idea, I’ll do that; I didn’t know where to put it.

> While speaking about code of conducts I have found sometimes ago an
> alternative version which achieves the same expected effect as the
> current one but in a more consensual way:
>
>   https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/Foundation/CodeOfConduct?action=show&redirect=CodeOfConduct

Thanks, I’ll look into it.

Ludo’.

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Rastus Vernon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1960 bytes --]

On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 23:38 +0200, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > 
> > diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
> > index ec92990..0e907ba 100644
> > --- a/NEWS
> > +++ b/NEWS
> [...]
> > 
> > -* Changes in 0.9.1 (since 0.9.0)
> > +* Changes in 0.10.0 (since 0.9.0)
> > +
> > +GNU Guix adopted a contributor code of conduct, see ‘CODE-OF-
> > CONDUCT’ in the
> > +source tree.
> I think it would be reasonable to integrate this news in the current
> scheme by not making it top level.  What about moving this news in a
> category "Contribution" or "Community"?
> 
> While speaking about code of conducts I have found sometimes ago an
> alternative version which achieves the same expected effect as the
> current one but in a more consensual way:
> 
>   https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/Foundation/CodeOfConduct?action=
> show&redirect=CodeOfConduct
> 
> Even if I know I belong to the minority who disagree with the
> “Contributor Covenant” ideas, I think GNOME code of conduct would fit
> better in Guix because it will not associate GNU with a movement
> using
> the term “Open Source” and promoting Github usage.
> 
> WDYT?

Yes, the Contributor Covenant does not fit the GNU project's ideals
very well. It is also my opinion that it is too political. I think we
want a code of conduct which ensures we have a nice community, not one
that makes us take political stances not related to free software.

I like the GNOME Code Of Conduct, but also want to suggest the Debian
Code of Conduct[1], which is more detailed, not political and fits this
project very well since Debian has similar ideas to ours on free
software (at least more than the Contributor Covenant), and is a
distribution like GuixSD.

The current code of conduct hasn't been there for long and changing it
wouldn't cost anything. :)

[1]: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

> 
> Thanks,
> 

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 4959 bytes --]

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Jookia]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:01:16PM -0400, Rastus Vernon wrote:
> Yes, the Contributor Covenant does not fit the GNU project's ideals
> very well. It is also my opinion that it is too political. I think we
> want a code of conduct which ensures we have a nice community, not one
> that makes us take political stances not related to free software.
>
> I like the GNOME Code Of Conduct, but also want to suggest the Debian
> Code of Conduct[1], which is more detailed, not political and fits this
> project very well since Debian has similar ideas to ours on free
> software (at least more than the Contributor Covenant), and is a
> distribution like GuixSD.
>
> The current code of conduct hasn't been there for long and changing it
> wouldn't cost anything. :)
>
> [1]: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

To join in the discussion, having a code of conduct at all is a political move.
We can't just make something apolitical, trying to make a safe space is always
going to repel people based on their political want to be jerks.

I don't like the GNOME Code of Conduct since it's not officially enforced, and
much like copyleft it makes it functionally useless. It also doesn't have
concrete examples of what is bad behaviour. Debian's also suffers from that.
Neither of them assign responsibility to project maintainers either.

I understand a code of conduct is always going to be controversial but why have
one at all if it lets bad behaviour flourish?

Jookia.

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

Rastus Vernon <rvernon@openmailbox.org> writes:

> On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 23:38 +0200, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
>
>> I think it would be reasonable to integrate this news in the current
>> scheme by not making it top level.  What about moving this news in a
>> category "Contribution" or "Community"?
>> 
>> While speaking about code of conducts I have found sometimes ago an
>> alternative version which achieves the same expected effect as the
>> current one but in a more consensual way:
>> 
>>   https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/Foundation/CodeOfConduct?action=
>> show&redirect=CodeOfConduct
>> 
>> Even if I know I belong to the minority who disagree with the
>> “Contributor Covenant” ideas, I think GNOME code of conduct would fit
>> better in Guix because it will not associate GNU with a movement
>> using
>> the term “Open Source” and promoting Github usage.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>
> Yes, the Contributor Covenant does not fit the GNU project's ideals
> very well. It is also my opinion that it is too political. I think we
> want a code of conduct which ensures we have a nice community, not one
> that makes us take political stances not related to free software.
>
> I like the GNOME Code Of Conduct, but also want to suggest the Debian
> Code of Conduct[1], which is more detailed, not political and fits this
> project very well since Debian has similar ideas to ours on free
> software (at least more than the Contributor Covenant), and is a
> distribution like GuixSD.
>
> The current code of conduct hasn't been there for long and changing it
> wouldn't cost anything. :)
>
> [1]: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

I much prefer the current COC to both that of GNOME and Debian.

I think trying to be apolitical is naive.  In practice it boils down to
accepting the status quo.  In an unjust society, some injustices appear
normal, therefore dissent against them is seen as more "political" than
the tolerance of those injustices, even though tolerating injustices is
surely a political move.

Speaking of sexism, racism, etc. specifically is honest, if we agree
that these are problems.  Actively refusing to speak of them amounts to
implying that these problems don't exist, which --if they exist-- is a
way to actively protect them.  I hope we can all agree that these
problems exist.

Taylan

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

I know I'm an exception, but the mere existence of that
CODE-OF-CONDUCT file was the main reason for me to give Guix a try.
Then I stayed for the rest.

On 30/03/2016, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer <taylanbayirli@gmail.com> wrote:
> I much prefer the current COC to both that of GNOME and Debian.

+1 to this (and the rest of Taylan's message; I think +1s are lame but
I would have written the same less concisely anyway).

> I think trying to be apolitical is naive.  In practice it boils down to
> accepting the status quo.  In an unjust society, some injustices appear
> normal, therefore dissent against them is seen as more "political" than
> the tolerance of those injustices, even though tolerating injustices is
> surely a political move.

That Debian CoC is conspicuous in both its vagueness and how it avoids
talking about structural issues. This sends a clear political message,
whether one likes it or not.

Unfortunately, ‘be excellent to each other’ is not a CoC, and it's
often an excuse not to have one.

Kind regards,

T G-R

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[John Darrington]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2385 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 01:02:15PM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:

There is nothing in the current coc which I particularly disagree with - 
all the examples of unacceptable conduct I personally consider unacceptable
in all walks of life.  
     
     Unfortunately, ???be excellent to each other??? is not a CoC, and it's
     often an excuse not to have one.

I can think of two much  better "excuses" :


The first is:

What hurts me when somebody shoves  a "code-of-conduct" in my face, is the veiled 
suggestion that lies behind it.  Viz:  "You might be a person who habitually uses
sexually explicit language, insults people, harrasses others,  assaults people, 
... murders them ..."

Of course, on a literal level this suggestion is correct, for a person who has never
met me, for all they know I might be a person who does those things.  But why 
accuse a person of those things on the first introduction?

The second is:

By having an explicit coc, the explicit message is "Examples of unacceptable 
behavior by participants include ..." The implicit message which is a logical 
consequence is: "... and we anticipate or have already experienced such 
behaviour by participants."


When I invite someone to my home for coffee, I do have a "code of conduct"  I 
expect my guests to be resonably polite, not to insult me, not to vandalise my 
home, fart in my face and lots of other things.  But I this "code of conduct" is
implicit.  I don't write it down.  I don't ask my guests to agree to it before 
they enter my home - if I did I would not be suprised if the very suggestion 
would cause them to be extremely offended.   I would not blame them if they 
excused themselves and departed without delay.  Likewise I think these "codes of
conduct" in community projects do not have the effect of welcoming people.  They
have the opposite effect.  


So lets HAVE a code of conduct.  But let's not have a written one.  Let's be open
and inviting.  If somebody does come in and start harassing/insulting/sexually 
assaulting/ people (which I think unlikely) we'll uninvite them.

J'



     

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encryted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 01:02:15PM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
>
> There is nothing in the current coc which I particularly disagree with - 
> all the examples of unacceptable conduct I personally consider unacceptable
> in all walks of life.  
>      
>      Unfortunately, ???be excellent to each other??? is not a CoC, and it's
>      often an excuse not to have one.
>
> I can think of two much  better "excuses" :
>
>
> The first is:
>
> What hurts me when somebody shoves  a "code-of-conduct" in my face, is the veiled 
> suggestion that lies behind it.  Viz:  "You might be a person who habitually uses
> sexually explicit language, insults people, harrasses others,  assaults people, 
> ... murders them ..."

The COC is there for everyone; I don't see why anybody should take it
personally and feel accused of anything.

> Of course, on a literal level this suggestion is correct, for a person who has never
> met me, for all they know I might be a person who does those things.  But why 
> accuse a person of those things on the first introduction?
>
> The second is:
>
> By having an explicit coc, the explicit message is "Examples of unacceptable 
> behavior by participants include ..." The implicit message which is a logical 
> consequence is: "... and we anticipate or have already experienced such 
> behaviour by participants."

Sure.  We're on the Internet. :-)

> When I invite someone to my home for coffee, I do have a "code of conduct"  I 
> expect my guests to be resonably polite, not to insult me, not to vandalise my 
> home, fart in my face and lots of other things.  But I this "code of conduct" is
> implicit.  I don't write it down.  I don't ask my guests to agree to it before 
> they enter my home - if I did I would not be suprised if the very suggestion 
> would cause them to be extremely offended.   I would not blame them if they 
> excused themselves and departed without delay.  Likewise I think these "codes of
> conduct" in community projects do not have the effect of welcoming people.  They
> have the opposite effect.  

There's the point that things are different on the Internet, and then
there's a point to be made about one-to-one or small-group meetings
where bad behavior will stick out immediately vs. large conventions
where bad behavior might remain undetected.  Having a COC gives a
guarantee to participants that if they personally have a bad experience,
they can bring it up to the organizers and action *will* be taken.  The
same principle applies to a large online community.

> So lets HAVE a code of conduct.  But let's not have a written one.  Let's be open
> and inviting.  If somebody does come in and start harassing/insulting/sexually 
> assaulting/ people (which I think unlikely) we'll uninvite them.
>
> J'

Taylan

Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[Ludovic Courtès]

taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:

> I much prefer the current COC to both that of GNOME and Debian.
>
> I think trying to be apolitical is naive.  In practice it boils down to
> accepting the status quo.  In an unjust society, some injustices appear
> normal, therefore dissent against them is seen as more "political" than
> the tolerance of those injustices, even though tolerating injustices is
> surely a political move.

+1.  (I too know +1s are lame, but hey! ;-))

In my view, GNOME’s CoC fails to send as clear a signal to people from
underrepresented groups, making it much less useful.

BTW, I find that v1.4 of the Covenant is better structured and worded
than v1.3, which is what we currently use:

  http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/

Maybe we should switch to that version.

Ludo’.