From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alex Sassmannshausen <alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:29:54 +0100
Message-ID: <87lg6h9ej1.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740>
	<CAE4v=pjofJu8nFhXjSDzeOP5Wr0BXpNMPmJ_VCgscYoGRCDcMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50274)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com>) id 1gH5k6-0003WN-UT
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:29:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com>) id 1gH5k6-0000db-55
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:29:58 -0400
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::532]:43223)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com>)
	id 1gH5k5-0000cF-UG
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:29:58 -0400
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so6943884eds.10
	for <guix-devel@gnu.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 04:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: <CAE4v=pjofJu8nFhXjSDzeOP5Wr0BXpNMPmJ_VCgscYoGRCDcMQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Hello,

G=C3=A1bor Boskovits writes:

> I have a feeling that I might confuse some things, as this thread is
> getting rather long, so let me summarize what I have on my mind so
> far:
>
> 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless.
> 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it
> discourages contributions.
> 3. GKCG seems to be inadequate in the opinion of the maintainers, as:
> a. it does not define acceptable behaviour, and
> b. it does not define processes.
>
> My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill.
>
> I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG,
> but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined.
>
> Do you think this can/should be done?
> Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall?

I appreciate the motivation behind this effort.  Personally I think it
is better to stick with a widely used, and fairly robust policy.  In
addition, rolling our own will be a very long, exhausting process, and
we'll likely end up with a document that still doesn't please everyone.

Just my 2=C2=A2.

Alex

>
> Best regards,
> g_bor