From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: HiPhish Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:37:03 +0100 Message-ID: <2243540.P3GW2o3ZaK@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56396) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGucI-0004b8-PE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:37:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGucF-0001ha-Fh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:37:10 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:34074) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGucF-0001ZS-58 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:37:07 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFE432134D for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:37:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 42jvJw1Zktz6tmB for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:37:04 +0100 (CET) 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: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 7:33 AM, G=E1bor Boskovits wrote: > 3. GKCG seems to be inadequate in the opinion of the maintainers, as: > a. it does not define acceptable behaviour, and > b. it does not define processes. To be honest, neither does the CC really. It throws out a vague list, but=20 never goes into any detail. I believe this is intentional, if you never def= ine=20 what the goalposts are, then you can move them around as much as you want a= nd=20 apply punishment as you see fit. The same goes for due process, it does not define how to apply punishment, = just=20 that the punishment can range from a warning to getting completely banned.= =20 Also the accused has no right to defense, the accusation does not need to b= e=20 disclosed and if any maintainer disagrees they can be removed from the proj= ect=20 as well. This is just a kangaroo court system. > I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, > but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. I am not totally opposed to it, but it's like writing your own license: oth= er=20 people have already put thought into it, so just use what they have written= =2E=20 The GKCG has the added bonus that it is an official GNU guideline, so it wo= uld=20 be nice to have it throughout the GNU projects. The Debian CoC seems fine, = and=20 KDE has a decent one as well. https://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/ > Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? Improve in regards to what exactly? Are the maintainers afraid that the=20 mailing list will turn into 4chan if there is no CoC in place?