On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 12:48:29PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> [2014-05-02 11:40 +0200]:
> > This means no swearing on this list, or in talks ("so yeah,
> > I tried that and royally firetrucked stuff up"), right?
> I would strongly advocate to keep a no-swearing default. First of
> all, I think it raises the quality altogether if people concentrate
> a bit more on what they say in public.
And don't forget, our talks are all live video-streamed, and those streams
may be rebroadcast over AX.25, making it a federal crime to swear!
<g,d,r>
Honestly, I don't imagine we'll ever have to kick anyone out for filling
their talks with swear words. But maybe it is a useful reminder to people
about the fact that when they're on stage, they're ... on stage, and what
they say carries.
I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this should be part of a
CoC. If we accept that the dual purpose of the CoC is to make people feel
welcome who would otherwise fear being subjected to abuse and to remind
people to be on their best behavior, does a "no swears" policy contribute to
this goal? I'm not sure that it does, but I'm also not sure it's
problematic to include.
BTW, regarding said "dual purpose" - perhaps it would be a good idea to call
this out explicitly in the CoC as a "rationale" statement, which both frames
it for the reader and provides guidance to the team in the future when they
need to bugfix it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature