From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: HiPhish Subject: Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 15:30:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4613025.ehhmaYlu10@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <87muqsmdyu.fsf@netris.org> <87ftwhyzh2.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48915) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJJQm-0003RA-TS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 09:31:17 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJJQb-0006Vu-Gz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 09:31:09 -0500 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:39539) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJJQa-0006NE-Uw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 09:31:01 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77F6021058 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 15:30:58 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87ftwhyzh2.fsf@netris.org> 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: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org I think "agree" in this context means to agree to follow the rules of that setting, not necessarily that you endorse those rules in general. For example, if you are a smoker in a non-smoking area you agree not to smoke while in that area, but you do not agree not to smoke at all. Or if you are in a vegan restaurant you will agree to eat vegan, but that does not make you actually a vegan yourself. On Sunday, 4 November 2018 10:15:58 CET Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi, > > I've decided to withdraw my objections to the policy of requiring that > project participants agree to our CoC. > > I read the language of the CoC again more carefully, looking to produce > a realistic scenario of a person with legitimate but unpopular political > views being discriminated against by this requirement. Ultimately, I > failed to find any realistic example that I wish to defend. > > I no longer believe that agreeing to our CoC implies declaring agreement > with it. I think I jumped to conclusions too quickly here, partly based > on an unusually strong interpretation of the word "agree". > > I've also been worrying about possible abuses that I now suspect (hope?) > would be unlikely to hold up in a court. For example, I worried that if > participation in the project is taken to imply agreement with our CoC, > that by a natural extrapolation, someone who contributes a single fix > but is otherwise uninvolved with the project could be legally held to be > bound by our CoC. That's thinking like a mathematician, where I should > have been trying to think like a lawyer. > > So, I'm withdrawing my objections. Sorry for the stress. > > Mark