Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > In addition, a list of "do not"s will make people assume that the
> > project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one
> > participant of the CoC BoF during debconf, when the draft CoC was still
> > somewhat negative: "I get the feeling, if I read this code of conduct,
> > that Debian is a very problematic community with lots of problems."
>
> > I don't want our code of conduct to produce that feeling.
>
> There's been a very strong and quite successful push recently to
> convince organisations to adopt codes of conduct so at this point the
> usual suggestion for people worrying about it being a sign of problems
> is to point people at the list of other organisations doing the same
> thing.
There is indeed a large group of organisations having a code of conduct.
However, the list of organizations with a code of conduct with such a
list is short. So this argument doesn't really hold, IMO.
> The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing
> Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to
> realise what appropriate behaviour is. Personally I do tend to share
> some of the concerns about rules lawyering and evasion with that but
> it's a reasonable view and I suspect you don't win either way.
I could see how a separate document, with an explicit list of "do not"s,
could usefully be linked from the "further reading" section.
I think we should not make such a list authoritative.
--
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/
Reply to: