Re: Code of Conduct final draft?

["Murray Cumming" <murrayc murrayc com>]

> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 10:08 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
>> I'm fairly happy with the Code Of Conduct draft now:
>> http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
>>
>> So, now for some process. I'd like the Foundation Board to consider this
>> and, all being well, declare it as official.
>>
>> I leave it up to the board to rename it to "GNOME Ethics" or similar,
>> though I personally find that a bit arbitrary while unnecessarily
>> broadening its scope. It wouldn't bother me much though.
>
> I don't really understand who/what is supposed to come out of this.
> Do we want to put stamps on people's behaviours?
> Do we want to shun someone because he had a bad day and called a user a
> nitwit?

Sorry, I probably should have summarized the previous discussion.

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.

It contains no official means of enforcement and there is no plan to use
this as a weapon. However, I wouldn't be surprised if, for instance,
mailing list maintainers referred to it sometimes when dealing with
unpleasant situations, just to save them writing a lot of text themselves.

This, by the way, is why it's not something that would be forced on
anyone. It's not new. It's just a tidy statement of an existing consensus.
In this way, it's a little similar to the release team documents.

Sorry for the boring process discussion.

> I can understand Ethics code, but I wouldn't sign this, knowing full
> well that I'll have bad days, and I call people things worse than nitwit
> even on a good day.

As do I. And people should know that's not how we are in general.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com