Hi Norbert, Op 27-11-13 10:50, Norbert Preining schreef: [...] > In all these emails the attacks were directed *at* me from main > proponents or supporters of the CoC, except Wouter. Only through severe self-restraint. Your tone is fairly harsh, and I can assure you that it's very difficult for me to remain polite. I can understand that you're not convinced that what I'm trying to do here is a good idea, and as such I certainly want to hear your opinion. But I would appreciate it tremendously if you would *calm down*. > So here > we have the *perfect* example why the CoC is dangerous. Many of > you are *already* now, before finalization, using it to > attack me because I am against it. I would guess that, if you were to look closely, you'd find people aren't trying to "attack" you because you are against this proposal, but because of the way in which you express that (otherwise perfectly valid) opinion. >> suggestions for improving the CoC language to *not* have the side effect of >> suppressing criticism, I for one would be interested in hearing them. > > So that means that the decision > We will install a CoC. > has already been done? Right? Am I correct? Not really I absolutely want to install this through a GR, because the one thing that I *do* agree on with you is that this should not be done over the objections of a majority of people. I personally believe we really ought to have a decent CoC, and I am trying to build a consensus so that when it is put to a vote it would be a mere formality, yes. But if you think we shouldn't do this, it is certainly within your right to propose an opposing option on the ballot. If you're not willing to do that, I welcome constructive comments; but it is my opinion that yours have been less than constructive so far. > And yes, I gave *several* proposal for changing the CoC with sentences. > I am serious that they are the ones that best describe the reality. I don't think having such a cynical code of conduct will be very helpful. A code of conduct should encourage good behaviour; the best way to do that is by example. By drafting a text which is likely to rub people the wrong way, you're not doing that. > And up to now nobody could convince me, nor even bring forth a > counterargument against my description of what the status quo is. > > But since the decision on having a CoC has already been set in stone, > and that the proposals of change I sent have been ignored or rejected, They have been rejected, because I was not convinced they were helpful, very much like I have also rejected Ian's comments in <[🔎] 21113.15690.515617.241319@chiark.greenend.org.uk> that the text should be much (*much*) shorter, because both of you didn't convince me. However, since I am trying to build consensus, I am certainly willing to change the text in ways that I disagree with, provided that the resulting text seems like something that is more likely to be agreed upon by a majority of people. So, it should be your goal to convince people, not alienate them. > I think there is no need to further discuss the CoC, as I cannot > do anything against/for it. Of course you can. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature