From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tonton Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 23:58:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20181029235811.38ce7ad8@merlin.browniehive.net> References: <87k1m852yc.fsf@gnu.org> <20181024010640.GA14776@antares.lan> <87y3an8xxe.fsf@gnu.org> <20181024142115.GA2088@antares.lan> <20181026233648.0fd1ea35@merlin.browniehive.net> <1540593452.395052.1556179352.51508E84@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20181028194258.773fa475@merlin.browniehive.net> <20181028195054.GA10708@antares.lan> 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]:42364) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHGUL-0007i2-Bw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:58:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHGUH-000420-A1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:58:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:55091) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHGUG-0003yO-U6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:58:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20181028195054.GA10708@antares.lan> 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: Alex Griffin Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 14:50:54 -0500 Alex Griffin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Tonton wrote: > > It seems to me you are making punishment way bigger than it actually is= . =20 >=20 > The CoC actually says that maintainers have a responsibility to remove=20 > offenders or risk being removed themselves. ... I'm assuming you are referring to this passage: > Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in > good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by > other members of the project=E2=80=99s leadership. The risk of maintainers being removed is slight, the text here talks about misconduct and other maintainers have to make a decision on a case by case basis - just like they would have to in relation to any other accusation of breach. As far as I understand this paragraf is explicitly saying that maintainers are within the scope of the CoC and they have some extra responsiblity to it. > > Remember the CoC is only true for some communities/cultures, it does not > > influence your legal entity outside of your interactions with the > > community =20 >=20 > To enter into a covenant, or agree to be bound by a code, means to stake= =20 > your word on it. The words themselves actually carry weight, and not=20 > just as rules to follow, which is why the tiniest details of these=20 > documents receive so much scrutiny. 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'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? :) >=20 > From sentence 1 of the Contributor Covenant: > > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as=20 > > contributors and maintainers pledge to [...] =20 >=20 > This snippet right here is a problem even before we get to the meat and=20 > potatoes. I don't appreciate the presumption that my mere participation=20 > indicates my agreement with this document. It rubs me the wrong way even= =20 > when I'm only reporting a bug (which does fall under its scope, because=20 > 'issues', as found in an issue tracker, are explicitly mentioned further= =20 > down). >=20 This is kind of like the Law of Cardamom[1]. The CC and most other CoC's I'= ve seen in FLOSS assume you are acting in good faith and that we are kind to each other. 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. So I skimmed over debians CoC[2] and find it to be mostly similar to the CC, though with a more positive and welcoming language (which also skips mention of negative behaviour). There's a few things I miss from it like process - which is alluded to, but not present as far as I could see. Looks good to me with a few additions. Let's see what comes of the discussion. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Robbers_Came_to_Cardamom_Town#L= aw [2]: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:26:58 -0500 Alex Griffin wrote: > Think about it this way. The Contributor Covenant goes on about the many > different ways that a disagreement might escalate, while the Debian CoC > spends almost all of its time modeling how to de-escalate a disagreement. I wonder if we are reading the same document. I'm assuming it's this one: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct As far as I can see it spends equal time on positive and negative behaviour and then defines responsibilities, scope and process. Debians spend time encouraging positive behaviour, and alludes to process - it misses responsibility and properly talking about process. 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. On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 15:25:01 -0500 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.