From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Griffin Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:14:53 -0500 Message-ID: <1540743293.3976852.1557362136.4CB14B65@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> 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]:34211) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGniR-0003OO-VQ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:15:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGniM-0003OR-0A for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:15:03 -0400 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:45671) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gGniL-0003Mx-Ld for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:14:57 -0400 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=20Boskovits?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 7:33 AM, G=C3=A1bor Boskovits wrote: > I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, > but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. >=20 > Do you think this can/should be done? > Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? It's tough work to get everything right in a CoC. I think that's probably w= hy the Contributor Covenant was chosen in the first place, but IMO it was a= bad choice. The GKCG is slightly less polished, and only preferable because it does NOT= specify processes (making it less important to agree with every word). The= processes are where the whole controversy is; nobody objects to behaving c= ompassionately. If you must spell out consequences for bad behavior, the Debian Code of Con= duct is impeccable, I suggest starting with that. Despite the fact that I d= islike codes of conduct in principle, I couldn't find a single thing wrong = with it. --=20 Alex Griffin