From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Lirzin Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:25:01 +0200 Message-ID: <8736suvyk2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k1m852yc.fsf@gnu.org> <8736sv7iex.fsf@gnu.org> <87va5q5nq7.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43764) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFhVY-00065N-SF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:25:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFhVV-0005l4-MV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:25:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87va5q5nq7.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:23:28 +0200") 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello Ricardo, Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> Mathieu Lirzin skribis: >> >>> Following the announcement made by RMS regarding the new GNU Kind >>> Communication Guidelines (GKCG) [1], I would like to know if the Guix >>> developpers in particular its maintainers would agree to adopt it in >>> place of the current Code of Conduct (CoC)? >> >> Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important >> issues, such as defining what=E2=80=99s acceptable and what=E2=80=99s no= t as well as >> clear processes to address this. > > [Apologies for the delay; I=E2=80=99m currently traveling.] No need to apology, your response is still prompt. :-) > Adding to what Ludovic wrote, I also would not want to replace the > current proven Contributor Covenant with the recently emerged GKCG. > Using *both* of them would not be useful, I think, as I find our current > CoC to be sufficient; using *only* the GKCG and dropping the existing > CoC would be a mistake in my opinion, as our CoC describes a process > which the GKCG does not. AIUI the GKCG is an attempt to reconcile people of the GNU hackers community which is has been fragmented by the CoC debate. In order to reconcile, each =E2=80=9Ccamp=E2=80=9D has to make some tradeof= fs. Since you are a CoC proponent, it is normal that you feel that the GKCG is not as =E2=80=9Cgood=E2=80=9D as the CoC. However I would really appreciate if= you (and Ludo) could seriously consider the GKCG =E2=80=9Cdownsides=E2=80=9D as an a= cceptable tradeoff to help uniting GNU Hackers and move the GNU project as a whole (not just the Guix project) towards what you consider the =E2=80=9Cright=E2= =80=9D direction in the =E2=80=9Charassment free=E2=80=9D path. >>> Adopting the GKCG instead of a CoC would help attracting people >>> (like me) who agree to use a welcoming and respectful language which >>> encourages everyone to contribute but are reluctant in contributing >>> to any project following a CoC due to its punitive nature and the >>> politics of its authors [2][3]. > > To me the politics of the author(s) of the original or current version > of the Contributor Covenant don=E2=80=99t play much of a role in preferin= g it as > a practical guiding document for this community. (I don=E2=80=99t know t= he > author.) Have you consider that it doesn't play a role because you basically share similar political ideas as the author(s) without knowing/caring? This is not intended as a critic, but just as an opportunity for you to consider that your own political bias (which we humans all have) is not universal and that maybe other =E2=80=9Crespectable=E2=80=9D persons might = not share it. > I think I see how it could be seen as =E2=80=9Cpunitive=E2=80=9D, but I d= on=E2=80=99t share this > assessment. We all want what=E2=80=99s best for the project and the peop= le who > currently work on or consider working on it =E2=80=94 to me the emergence= of the > GKCG is more evidence that this is true. I hope that seeing these > similarities in intent more than the differences in implementation will > allow you to overcome your feeling of reluctance to contribute to Guix > (and other projects that have decided to adopt a CoC). As explain above, I don't think the CoC and GKCG has the same intent. If it were the case that Guix choose to ignore this opportunity to reconcile, I am sorry to say that my reluctance to contribute to Guix would not diminish. Thanks for you answer. --=20 Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37