From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Sassmannshausen Subject: Re: Patch submission should not imply agreement to policy (was Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:48:18 +0100 Message-ID: <875zxi9t9p.fsf@gmail.com> 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> <20181029095913.25aa3829@alma-ubu> <87d0rseja4.fsf@dustycloud.org> <874ld3lvs1.fsf_-_@netris.org> <87bm7bef6y.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87bm7aa3wp.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57622) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHpvL-0006AN-Sw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:48:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHpvG-0002AY-BK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:48:39 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::334]:40202) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHpvF-00020R-IE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:48:34 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id b203-v6so14446875wme.5 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT) 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: t_w_@freenet.de Cc: Guix-devel Thanks for your answers. I'm glad to hear that there might be room for some form of dialogue on wording. Cheers! Alex Thorsten Wilms writes: > On 31/10/2018 09.58, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: >> Out of curiosity, would you personally feel better about the CoC if it >> used terms such as "This community commits to" or "This community >> pledges to" insteead of "We as contributors commit to"? > > In as far as contributing doesn't make one part of the community > ... it would be a slight improvement. On the other hand, it's just > vaguer about whom it puts words into their mouths. > > >> I ask because one of the positives about the CC wording from my >> perspective is that it specifically makes it a collective responsibility >> to uphold certain norms, and not just the responsibility of the >> "projec authorities". It is understood that there are specific channels >> for dealing with violations of those norms, but the community as a whole >> stands behind that. > > Yeah, that's the positive reading. A negative is that it is an attempt > to push people to declare a mixed bag as their own, with no voice in > the process (other than take it or leave it). One that contains > hard-to-argue-with aspects, but also questionable and vague parts.