From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=) Subject: Re: NEWS for 0.10.0 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:17:14 +0200 Message-ID: <87egaryb3p.fsf@T420.taylan> References: <87h9fryfub.fsf@gnu.org> <87twjrvbyb.fsf@gnu.org> <1459303276.4007.9.camel@openmailbox.org> <87vb44xs8l.fsf@T420.taylan> <20160330172855.GA1172@jocasta.intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49304) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alMYI-0004bI-51 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:17:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alMYH-0007Kh-1o for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:17:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]:34449) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alMYG-0007KY-Oe for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:17:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id p65so18035015wmp.1 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:17:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160330172855.GA1172@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message of "Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:28:55 +0200") 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org John Darrington writes: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 01:02:15PM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > There is nothing in the current coc which I particularly disagree with - > all the examples of unacceptable conduct I personally consider unacceptable > in all walks of life. > > Unfortunately, ???be excellent to each other??? is not a CoC, and it's > often an excuse not to have one. > > I can think of two much better "excuses" : > > > The first is: > > What hurts me when somebody shoves a "code-of-conduct" in my face, is the veiled > suggestion that lies behind it. Viz: "You might be a person who habitually uses > sexually explicit language, insults people, harrasses others, assaults people, > ... murders them ..." The COC is there for everyone; I don't see why anybody should take it personally and feel accused of anything. > Of course, on a literal level this suggestion is correct, for a person who has never > met me, for all they know I might be a person who does those things. But why > accuse a person of those things on the first introduction? > > The second is: > > By having an explicit coc, the explicit message is "Examples of unacceptable > behavior by participants include ..." The implicit message which is a logical > consequence is: "... and we anticipate or have already experienced such > behaviour by participants." Sure. We're on the Internet. :-) > When I invite someone to my home for coffee, I do have a "code of conduct" I > expect my guests to be resonably polite, not to insult me, not to vandalise my > home, fart in my face and lots of other things. But I this "code of conduct" is > implicit. I don't write it down. I don't ask my guests to agree to it before > they enter my home - if I did I would not be suprised if the very suggestion > would cause them to be extremely offended. I would not blame them if they > excused themselves and departed without delay. Likewise I think these "codes of > conduct" in community projects do not have the effect of welcoming people. They > have the opposite effect. There's the point that things are different on the Internet, and then there's a point to be made about one-to-one or small-group meetings where bad behavior will stick out immediately vs. large conventions where bad behavior might remain undetected. Having a COC gives a guarantee to participants that if they personally have a bad experience, they can bring it up to the organizers and action *will* be taken. The same principle applies to a large online community. > So lets HAVE a code of conduct. But let's not have a written one. Let's be open > and inviting. If somebody does come in and start harassing/insulting/sexually > assaulting/ people (which I think unlikely) we'll uninvite them. > > J' Taylan