[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:49:51PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> > > > > 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the "mailinglist
> > > > >    code of conduct" at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> > > > 
> > > > Is this overriding the listmasters then?
> > ....
> > > I'll leave it up to the secretary to decide whether this is, indeed,
> > > overriding listmasters, but I don't think it is, or should be.
> > 
> > I think it would be better to get an opinion from the listmasters.  If
> > the listmasters are happy with the GR then clearly it's not overruling
> > them.  If they are unhappy with it then given that they're mostly
> > going to be implementing it we should hear about it and take their
> > comments on board!
> > 
> > I would be happy to second this GR provided that the listmasters
> > approve, or at least don't object.
> > 
> > I don't want to CC the listmasters in this thread on -vote because
> > they probably don't want a zillion crossposts.  As the proponent and
> > editor, would you send them a mail asking their opinion ?
> I did actually already do that (by mail to listmaster@, on 2013-11-27,
> with Message-ID: <5295BDA8.80605@debian.org>), but never got a reply.
> Whether that is because the mail was forgotten, or because they just
> agreed with it and didn't think it therefore required a reply or
> something else entirely, I cannot say. But given the level of consensus
> I had already achieved on -project, and given the fact that I do think
> it is mostly in line with their current policies, means I thought it
> better to move this forward.
> If indeed listmasters do object (which I don't think will be the case,
> but of course I can't read their minds), then obviously we'll need to
> work with them to fix that. Indeed, if what we propose is in line with
> what listmasters believe should be done, then this issue would be moot,
> anyway.
in my case it is more the lack of time to dive into that process. I still
think we should comment it.


Reply to: