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 09:58:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87bm7aa3wp.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> 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]:42506) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHmKk-0007v3-Sq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 04:58:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHmKf-0005XH-V3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 04:58:38 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]:36049) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHmKf-0005Wa-OS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 04:58:33 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id a8-v6so13709675wmf.1 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 01:58:33 -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@gnu.org Hi Thorsten, Thorsten Wilms writes: > [...] > > Likewise, contributing to Guix is apparently meant to imply that one > makes the pledge as outlined in that CoC. > > In both cases, you are meant to not get one without the other. It > happened that one could not read the EULA in advance and it happened > that I contributed before reading the CoC carefully. I distrust it's > origin and I'm not happy about a few details, though they most likely > will never matter. So I could almost, but not quite make such a > promise, but I cannot be made to make such a promise. Especially > retroactively. Even less can I be made to make a promise that might > change: > > I assume that Ricardo and Ludovic want to have the option of editing > the CoC without asking every single contributor. Well, people should > better know what the current state of their pledge is. > > Not that I think the two would introduce a nasty surprise, it's just > that the "covenant" and "we as contributors ... pledge" language is > dishonest. 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"? 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. Alex