From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 04:15:58 -0500 Message-ID: <87ftwhyzh2.fsf@netris.org> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <2337848.8Py3U4Hz1U@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <87va5ii4o2.fsf@fsfe.org> <5212617.ijJ0i6tFDm@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <20181031154153.q7b7gjkcup4ktwsw@thebird.nl> <20181031175112.GA29952@jasmine.lan> <87wopwuah2.fsf@gnu.org> <87muqsmdyu.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41609) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJEWe-00080Y-I9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 04:16:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJEWb-0007ui-Eu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 04:16:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87muqsmdyu.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:04:30 -0400") 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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, HiPhish 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