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: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:04:30 -0400 Message-ID: <87muqsmdyu.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> 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]:56943) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gIOqJ-0004tA-45 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:05:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gIOqF-0008Vo-TR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:05:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wopwuah2.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 01 Nov 2018 15:40:57 +0100") 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 Ludovic, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Leo Famulari skribis: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:41:53PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote: >>> I suggest to end this thread. HiPhish, come and discuss your points at >>> FOSDEM. We'll set up a working group for those who care about these >>> things. >> >> I agree. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam across the internet, >> and even offline, and we are not going to achieve a breakthrough here on >> the Guix mailing list. > > +1. I'm unable to travel to FOSDEM this year, so moving the discussion there would effectively exclude me from participating in it. > Furthermore, this project, like any other, has its license, its rules, > etc. Of course we can discuss these things together, it=E2=80=99s what m= akes a > project healthy. Agreed. > However, when joining the project, one agrees to follow these rules While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, and I support the practice of enforcing those policies through our control over our infrastructure and communications channels, I strongly oppose requiring or presuming that all participants "agree" with our policies, which I take to mean "declaring that they share the same opinions and goals". Some participants may disagree with our policies, and that's okay. We don't need their agreement to enforce our policies. Forcing people to declare their agreement with our policies as a prerequisite for participation, or worse, _presuming_ that they agree based on their having sent a patch or posted a message, is needlessly alienating to those who don't share our views. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it's important for us to obtain "agreement" with our policies from all participants. It would be like a restaurant asking every customer to sign an agreement before entering, forcing them to agree in advance to a list of rules, e.g. that they won't harass the other customers. There's no need for it, and it's needlessly alienating. It's more than enough to simply have a list of rules posted in public view, and to enforce the rules as the need arises. Mark