Re: Code of Conduct final draft?

[Tristan Van Berkom <tvb gnome org>]

Telsa Gwynne wrote:
> Ar Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:57:10AM +0200, ysgrifennodd Philip Van Hoof:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:38 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> >
> > > The idea is to state what we consider acceptable behaviour, in order to
> > > advertize to newcomers what they can expect when getting involved in
> > > GNOME, and to reinforce this existing behaviour, so that bad behaviour is
> > > more clearly unacceptable when it does happen. It says who we are and who
> > > we want to be and how we'd like people to think of us.
> ...
[...]

For what its worth,
    I was one of the first people to speak up against having a
rulebook attitude on any gnome web-pages, after reading Murray's
last draft, I find it quite friendly and unoffensive and dont really
have any objection.

I dont think this is going to do anything for general "obnoxiousness"
on mailing lists and irc channels though and I think that is quite
ok, I think that what alot of people misinterpret as obnoxiousness
is in fact somebody who feels that thier opinions have been overlooked
or that they are not being properly listened to (remember the third
point in Murray's draft).

As the technical crowd we are, we are obstinate by definition, everybody
wants to be heard and everyone should want to play fair, through this
obstinacy we achieve a level of peer review that augments the quality
of the software that we write and the activities that we participate in...
without regards to any code, most people I argue with are very nice
about it... even though I am often frustrated and find the operation
very obnoxious.

Anyhow, to sum up what I have to say here:

  o I think there has been an improvement on the code of conduct and
    it sounds friendly and not imposing - thanks Murray.

  o I protest that people find that other people in gnome are being
    obnoxious or unfriendly, that is not my experience in the slightest;
    people have strong feelings about the excelence of the software
    that they spend large amounts of thier own free time developing,
    and thus have the right to argue thier points vigorously.

Cheers,
                       -Tristan