From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:23:28 +0200 Message-ID: <87va5q5nq7.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87k1m852yc.fsf@gnu.org> <8736sv7iex.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]:44312) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFdIN-0006oq-BP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:55:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFd3M-00031x-5w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:39:49 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21072) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFd3L-0002vs-K8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:39:47 -0400 In-reply-to: <8736sv7iex.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Mathieu Lirzin Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello Mathieu, > 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 not= as well as > clear processes to address this. [Apologies for the delay; I=E2=80=99m currently traveling.] 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. Committing to a process to deal with grievances is a very desirable feature of our current CoC that I don=E2=80=99t want to give up. As one of= the people who shares responsibility for dealing with incidents of harassment or misunderstandings, this helps me do a better job. Even so, I encourage people to continue to engage in fostering kind communication in the channels of the Guix project, something that this community by and large does very well. >> 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 prefering = it as a practical guiding document for this community. (I don=E2=80=99t know the author.) I think I see how it could be seen as =E2=80=9Cpunitive=E2=80=9D, but I don= =E2=80=99t share this assessment. We all want what=E2=80=99s best for the project and the people= who currently work on or consider working on it =E2=80=94 to me the emergence o= f 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). -- Ricardo