From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Griffin Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 14:50:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20181028195054.GA10708@antares.lan> References: <87k1m852yc.fsf@gnu.org> <20181024010640.GA14776@antares.lan> <87y3an8xxe.fsf@gnu.org> <20181024142115.GA2088@antares.lan> <20181026233648.0fd1ea35@merlin.browniehive.net> <1540593452.395052.1556179352.51508E84@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20181028194258.773fa475@merlin.browniehive.net> Reply-To: Alex Griffin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44259) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGr5R-0000di-7v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 15:51:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGr5O-0004lb-2w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 15:51:01 -0400 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:41875) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGr5N-0004ky-Md for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 15:50:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181028194258.773fa475@merlin.browniehive.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Tonton Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Tonton wrote: > It seems to me you are making punishment way bigger than it actually is. The CoC actually says that maintainers have a responsibility to remove offenders or risk being removed themselves. In contrast the Debian Code of Conduct says: > While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we > recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of > some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you > may reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages > may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However, > regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still > adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, > it should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is > more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than > that they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion. The difference is like night and day. > Remember the CoC is only true for some communities/cultures, it does not > influence your legal entity outside of your interactions with the community To enter into a covenant, or agree to be bound by a code, means to stake your word on it. The words themselves actually carry weight, and not just as rules to follow, which is why the tiniest details of these documents receive so much scrutiny. >From sentence 1 of the Contributor Covenant: > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as > contributors and maintainers pledge to [...] This snippet right here is a problem even before we get to the meat and potatoes. I don't appreciate the presumption that my mere participation indicates my agreement with this document. It rubs me the wrong way even when I'm only reporting a bug (which does fall under its scope, because 'issues', as found in an issue tracker, are explicitly mentioned further down). -- Alex Griffin