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

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef u:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi,
> *snip*
> > > - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there
> > > are missing the mail/list specific parts.
> > 
> > Hm. The whole point of this exercise was to replace that code of conduct
> > with a more generic and up-to-date one, so if you feel that this isn't
> > good enough, then that's a bug.
> > 
> > Can you be more specific about the bits that you think should not be
> > removed from the current mailinglist coc?
> Your goals are honorable, but I am not sure if this possible. Let me see:
> I have some example that I don't want to lose, but most are for example not
> suitable for IRC:
> - Do not send spam; see the advertising policy below. (the  advertising
>   policy is the interesting part)

Right, that one.

I'm not sure this belongs in a code of conduct, for the same reason that we 
shouldn't publish bans for trolls or spammers. A code of conduct should be 
about conduct, i.e., social behaviour, not about "don't be a pest".

That doesn't mean we should not have a "do not spam" policy, nor that we 
cannot publish such a policy; just that I don't think it should be part of a 
code of _conduct_.

In addition, personally I am not convinced that this part of the current code 
of conduct is very efficient in fighting spam, but then I am not in your 
shoes. Do you believe otherwise? If so, can you clarify?

> - Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing
>   lists where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on
> debian-user-french).

A clause like

"Please use the appropriate language for the medium you are using. In Debian, 
this is usually English, but there are exceptions (e.g. use French on the 
debian-user-french mailinglist, or Dutch on the #debian-nl IRC channel)."

could work.

Having said that, I should note that my very first draft[1] did still contain 
this clause (or a similar one, at least); I'm not sure anymore why it was 

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00060.html

> - Make sure that you are using the proper list. In
> particular, don't send user-related questions to developer-related mailing
> lists.

"Some of our communication channels have topic-specific subdivisions; please 
use the appropriate one for your topic", possibly with an example?

> - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines
>   longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output
> (e.g., ls -l).
> - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages.
> - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is
> working.
> - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list
> address itself; use the respective -request address instead.
> - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead.
> - Avoid sending large attachments.

While I agree that these are useful suggestions (and that therefore they 
probably should be retained), these sound more like technical guidelines; I 
don't think a code of _conduct_ should contain technical explanations on how 
to configure your mail client.

So I would suggest that for these things, we create something else (not a code 
of conduct) that is maintained by you, our listmasters. The (proposed) code of 
conduct could obviously refer to it from the "further reading" section, if 
that seems appropriate.

Does that make sense?

Additionally, the bits about "large attachments" and "HTML" sound like things 
that could more easily be done by a filter. If we don't want large 
attachments, we should make it technically impossible for people to send them 
(while making sure that those who try will get an informative bounce message).

> - Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private
> mail, unless agreed beforehand.

I believe such a clause was originally part of the "Be open" item in my draft, 
but it got edited out. We could add it back, of course...

> - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy
> (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied.

Well, heh.

On that one, I think the current code of conduct is a mistake, because most 
mail clients make it very hard to do that.

Yes, some mail clients do have a "list reply" option, but some will only send 
the reply to the mailinglist on which the person replying received the mail in 
question; any cross-posted mailinglists will be dropped, which is not always 
the right thing to do.

Yes, one can edit the list of recipients and remove non-list recipients, but 
then those recipients who explicitly asked to be Cc'd somewhere up the thread 
will not receive those requested copies.

I think we should default to what tools make easy, not to the option which 
requires manual work.

I understand that this is the current policy, and if there is a strong feeling 
that we should retain it, I won't oppose keeping it. But my personal opinion 
is that it should go.

> - If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when you did
> not ask for it, do it privately.

This follows from the above, so if the above one goes, so will this one.

> - If you send messages to lists to which you are not subscribed, always note
> that fact in the body of your message.

That's a difficult one, indeed.

> This are a lot of points, and most of them don't fit to other mediums.

As above, I don't agree with that. Most do, some I think should be in a 
different medium, and one point doesn't make "most" ;-)

> > > I am also not that happy with having
> > > several documents with the name 'Code of Conduct', maybe we can find a
> > > solution somehow.
> > 
> > Yes, that would seem to be obvious; I don't think we need several codes of
> > conduct.
> I think that there are always medium specific rules that don't apply to
> other medium. One classic point specific to IRC would be not to use an CTCP
> VERSION to all clients.

An earlier draft of my proposed CoC did contain "medium-specific" sections, 
but those were axed. We could add that back, if necessary...

> *snip*
> > >  Are _all_ other administrators of
> > >  
> > >   'Debian communication forums' aware of that change? If we go that way,
> > >   we
> > >   should probably move away from announcing them on -private and move to
> > >   something else. Like an mbox on master, or something else (and in my
> > >   eyes
> > > 
> > > - non-public).
> > 
> > I don't think it's necessary to move that.
> > 
> > While the code of conduct says that bans should be made public to Debian
> > Developers, it does not say how, where, in what manner, or even if bans
> > should be made public _only_ to Debian Developers (although we might be
> > somewhat more explicit about that). This is intentional; I think review
> > of bans is a good thing, and I do think we should have it, but I don't
> > want a document like this to impose any workflow on anyone.
> > 
> > As such, personally I don't expect this to result in a major increase
> > (other than has already happened) of such announcements to -private.
> OK
> Alex

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: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: