From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Griffin Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:46:43 -0500 Message-ID: <1540860403.119643.1559028280.4B9C548F@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37055) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHIBI-0000Oq-3h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:46:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHIBD-00053i-I5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:46:52 -0400 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:43257) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHIBD-00053I-5Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:46:47 -0400 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: Tonton Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, at 5:58 PM, Tonton wrote: > There are limits though. The CC pledges you to abide by it's rules in > relation to a certain community. Outside of this you are not pledged to it. > but see below. I know, but my point is that pledging yourself to the CoC is way different than just entering a space with established rules or norms that you should follow. > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The words themselves actually > carry weight, and not just as rules to follow" How do they carry weight > outside of setting rules? I'm a bit intrigued by how much weight you put in > your words though. Do you never blow with the wind and dance with the stars > because of this bondage to words? The words "covenant" or "code" in this sense of the word are far more weighty than guidelines or even rules. Obviously I do speak casually most of the time but not when discussing statements of value. > I too spent some time mulling that one over, but seeing as it > asks you to pledge what I see as a low standard of communication I found no > problem with it. The fact that it gives some of us pause is probably enough > to warrant a change though. It's not *just* a low standard of communication. The same sentence goes on to list a whole slew of categories you might use to put people into groups, which I don't agree with because it encourages treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals. > Debians spend time > encouraging positive behaviour, and alludes to process - it misses > responsibility and properly talking about process. Both documents barely address responsibility at all, and to properly address it would veer this discussion far down the philosophical rabbit hole. > Debians also misses defining negative behaviour, which leaves it up to > potential contributors to investigate what is allowed and not in the > community. This is enough for some to not bother trying, and that is one of > the important points. I (we) want to include them. Behavior which causes conficts qualifies as *potentially* negative, to be negotiated as it occurs, except possibly in very serious cases. > Alex Griffin wrote: > > In a sense, the Debian Code of Conduct is a code in name only. It's really > > just 6 guidelines for kind communication and resolving conflicts > > peacefully, and finally a method for seeking recourse either as a last > > resort or in serious cases. The Contributor Covenant is actually a real > > covenant. > > that's the same thing. :) I encourage reading the tao of pooh - this is > completely off topic. They're not the same thing at all. A covenant is something you pledge yourself to, a code in this sense of the word might otherwise be called a creed. A code might also just be a plain old list of rules, which the Debian CoC still wouldn't qualify for. -- Alex Griffin