From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Sassmannshausen Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:29:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87lg6h9ej1.fsf@gmail.com> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> Reply-To: alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com 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]:50274) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5k6-0003WN-UT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:29:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5k6-0000db-55 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:29:58 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::532]:43223) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5k5-0000cF-UG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:29:58 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so6943884eds.10 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 04:29:57 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: 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: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Cc: Guix-devel Hello, G=C3=A1bor Boskovits writes: > I have a feeling that I might confuse some things, as this thread is > getting rather long, so let me summarize what I have on my mind so > far: > > 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless. > 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it > discourages contributions. > 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. > > My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill. > > I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, > but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. > > Do you think this can/should be done? > Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? I appreciate the motivation behind this effort. Personally I think it is better to stick with a widely used, and fairly robust policy. In addition, rolling our own will be a very long, exhausting process, and we'll likely end up with a document that still doesn't please everyone. Just my 2=C2=A2. Alex > > Best regards, > g_bor