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 12:27:31 +0100 Message-ID: <87muqx9en0.fsf@gmail.com> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <58c24819-89fb-3ae9-c08a-5b7a5906fb90@freenet.de> 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]:49125) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5i6-0001tX-QY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:27:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5i4-0005KJ-Ok for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:27:54 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]:43202) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5i4-0004uC-85 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:27:52 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so6937635eds.10 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 04:27:35 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <58c24819-89fb-3ae9-c08a-5b7a5906fb90@freenet.de> 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: t_w_@freenet.de Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Thorsten Wilms writes: > On 28/10/2018 13.33, G=C3=A1bor Boskovits wrote: >> 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless. > > ACK > >> 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it >> discourages contributions. > > That's a somewhat limited and tame take on it ;) > You may count me as having contributed (little as it was) despite of > the CC, definitively not because of it. I for one am very glad you decided to contribute! > The association with the primary author makes some people think of the > ... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of > 2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short > here, thus far from exact). I think if you make these assertions you might want to bring context. As it stands it reads a little like "poisoning the well": you seem to imply the CC is bad because allegedly the author has done bad things in the past. > While one may say that the CC can and should be seen on its own, this > background does turn it into ... unwelcoming language to some. > > I take it for some it reads like an invitation to those with little to > nothing better to do, to report perceived or even made-up misbehavior. And that assumption by those people would be, to the best of my knowledge of the actual facts, incorrect. > It has run-on sentences and ridiculous lists. Compare, and I can't > even bring myself to quote from the start of the sentence in the far > distance: > > "... regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender > identity and expression, level of experience, education, > socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, > religion, or sexual identity and orientation." > > With Debian's: > > "No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we > welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they > interact constructively with our community." > > > How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from > sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies > ... Just to clarify, gender identity and expression refers to who you (feel like you) are. Sexual identity & orientation is about who you are attracted to. > and biology? Disability is listed, not (level of) ability. Body size > couldn't be be subsumed by (personal (what other kind could it be?)) > appearance? Trying so hard to be political correct, but than using > the loaded term "race". > > > This one is too "funny": > "The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard > to the reporter of an incident." This is not uncommon in the context of harassment cases. > So if Jim reports that Jane threatened him to foobar his baz, then the > project team has to contact Jane, but must keep it secret that Jim > reported the issue? While being fair to Jane? Maybe such threats are > illegal in the countries of both, maybe it's actually one country and > police and the judicature might get involved? > > If the reporter is a 3rd party, sure, but even then an accused person > may express anger towards the potential victim, via assuming that the > potential victim reported personally. > > Now there may be cases where protecting a reporter is important and > just, but this "protecting any accuser, always" stance seems > problematic. This reads like hyperbole. If somenoe makes a complaint about me, I will be contacted by the maintainers. They will discuss the nature of the allegation with me, and hopefully I will be able to say "Shit, I had no idea what I did had this impact on someone else in the community. Thanks for bringing this to me. Any idea how I can avoid this in future?". I don't see where the problem is there? >> 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? > > Yes and yes, though I'm not sure how much of a GKCG-alike it should > become, as I think it's important to have something short that people > can read and agree with (or not). Alex