Hi, Op maandag 24 februari 2014 08:47:57 schreef Alexander Wirt: > Sorry for being late. No worries -- we don't always have the time :) > That morning I found the time to read the CoC in > detail. In that mail I speak primary for myself and not all listmasters. But > I collected some opinions from the others forehand, therefore I hope that > what I write is in line with the other listmasters. Thanks > I am quite happy with the CoC as it is, I just have a few > supplementary notes. > > - 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? > 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 always found the netiquette [2] a very useful source, maybe we can add a > link to it to the document. Good idea. > - "The administrators will divulge any bans to all Debian Developers for > review". I know that this is the case for lists.d.o now, but I never saw > other anything from other services. I have seen several such announcements from owner@bugs.d.o now, too. > 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. I could be mistaken, of course. -- 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.