|Dave Neary||Dec 1, 2006 6:02 am|
|Murray Cumming||Dec 1, 2006 7:05 am|
|Adrian Custer||Dec 1, 2006 7:36 am|
|Dave Neary||Dec 1, 2006 9:31 am|
|Murray Cumming||Dec 1, 2006 9:44 am|
|Danilo Šegan||Dec 1, 2006 10:43 am|
|Murray Cumming||Dec 1, 2006 11:03 am|
|Anne Østergaard||Dec 1, 2006 11:11 am|
|Glynn Foster||Dec 1, 2006 12:24 pm|
|Murray Cumming||Dec 1, 2006 12:34 pm|
|Mariano Suárez-Alvarez||Dec 1, 2006 7:02 pm|
|Alan Horkan||Dec 1, 2006 9:06 pm|
|Dave Neary||Dec 2, 2006 1:24 am|
|Alan Horkan||Dec 2, 2006 2:02 am|
|Johannes Schmid||Dec 2, 2006 5:21 am|
|Quim Gil||Dec 2, 2006 5:55 am|
|Alan Horkan||Dec 2, 2006 6:29 am|
|Danilo Šegan||Dec 3, 2006 1:35 pm|
|Adam Schreiber||Dec 3, 2006 1:47 pm|
|Philip Van Hoof||Dec 4, 2006 8:50 am|
|Olav Vitters||Dec 4, 2006 9:53 am|
|Philip Van Hoof||Dec 4, 2006 10:27 am|
|Olav Vitters||Dec 4, 2006 10:49 am|
|Murray Cumming||Dec 4, 2006 11:44 am|
|Philip Van Hoof||Dec 4, 2006 12:13 pm|
|Andrew Sobala||Dec 4, 2006 12:49 pm|
|Elijah Newren||Dec 4, 2006 2:53 pm|
|Jeff Waugh||Dec 4, 2006 3:02 pm|
|Telsa Gwynne||Dec 8, 2006 1:26 pm|
|Dave Neary||Dec 8, 2006 2:42 pm|
|Quim Gil||Dec 8, 2006 3:39 pm|
|Alan Horkan||Dec 10, 2006 7:02 pm|
|Jeff Waugh||Dec 10, 2006 7:42 pm|
|Quim Gil||Dec 12, 2006 3:58 pm|
|Quim Gil||Dec 12, 2006 4:07 pm|
|Murray Cumming||Dec 14, 2006 2:59 am|
|Murray Cumming||Jan 16, 2007 6:40 am|
|Subject:||Re: Code of conduct (bis)|
|From:||Alan Horkan (hork...@maths.tcd.ie)|
|Date:||Dec 10, 2006 7:02:12 pm|
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Quim Gil wrote:
2006/12/8, Telsa Gwynne <hob...@aloss.ukuu.org.uk>:
Would it be possible to find out who felt which way? I can't see it in the minutes, and this is very much a deciding issue for me when it comes to voting for the new board.
This is how I felt: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-December/msg00017.html
As a board member I don't think the board needs to be the first approving the CoC. Maybe the last, after the community has approved it, if the CoC needs it.
As a GNOME Foundation member I don't think we need a CoC. Where is the abuse that justifies the adoption of a new tool to prevent abuse?
The Code of Conduct is not abuse, as both you and Philip seem to perceive it. Abuse is when behaviour goes below the bare minimum acceptable level but a Code of Conduct tries to show better more ideal behaviour rather than just scraping by with barely acceptable "not abusive" behaviour.
Like it or not the behaviour of all those who post to gnome lists and write on Gnome channels is what represents us all. Not using adresses @gnome.org or claiming your words are your own and represent only you might be a nice thought but it does not absolve the author from their responsibilities.
Gnome has rightly or wrongly acquired a perception of arrogance. It would be nice if one those increasingly rare occasions that someone is having a bad days and feels the need to take it out on someone else that we can explain to users they need not expect or accept that sort of behaviour. A beginner* does not and should not be expected to understand the difference in motivations if they get a rude and unhelpful response. They can quite easily take their time and interest elsewhere.
Having a clear "Code of Conduct" gives us a starting position which says this is what we are aiming for, and makes it much easier for anyone to step in and say what is expected and what is not particularly appropriate. Hopefully it will give users and developers a better idea of what people are expecting and result in less unreasonable behaviour.
(Explaining such vague generalities is hard, pointing to the much more forgiving and welcoming atmosphere fostered by Ubuntu compared to Debian community where a certain amount of hostility was tacitly accepted when they might actually have liked to have preferred to discourage it but lacked a way to do so until Ubuntu showed a way.)
Writing and signing a CoC doesn't make us per se any better promoting minorities and diversity. The CoC debate months ago was a somewhat sad example.
Failing to do so speaks volumes. Although the writer was joking when they wrote of a fictional headline "Gnome foundation fails to accept Code of Conduct" (or words to that effect) there is an unfortunate risk of it being perceived that way by those outside of Gnome. Hopefully the list of signatories to the Code of Conduct will go a long way to clarify the amount of support for a clear Code of Conduct.
There really only appears to be a difference of degrees and a reluctance from the Board to do anything from the top down and risk a backlash. Low voter turnout means ideally "democratic" full participation referendums are impractical. The board is elected to represent, and must risk representing the voters and making the occasional slip rather than giving in to analysis paralysis or any notion that doing their job is undemocratic.
(This all reminds me how the usability guide gave all Gnome users a way to articulate and communicate an idea most of us already had and accepted on some level but not quite in exactly the same way. To put it another way all developers appreciate a good API and a clean specification right?)
-- Alan H.
* and hopefully future contributor