Re: A matter of intent [Was: Re: Code of Conduct final draft?]

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:07:14PM -0400, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
> You have said that the CoC "isn't and wasn't 'rules'" and claimed to
> have added this point to the Wiki page on June 2nd.[1] I don't think
> that your June 2nd change [2] actually says that "this isn't and
> wasn't rules", and what you wrote does not appear in the latest
> version, nor does your intent sentiment [3].

Adding to the intent part (long because I want to explain my entire
thoughts -- and please read the entire thing before responding):

Why have a CodeOfConduct? I do not want to abide by things that would be
so general that it wouldn't make any sense to write them down. They
should be general as nobody would want to abide by small rules. I also
dislike following rules as GNOME should be fun and following rules is
not fun (for me). I also think our current community is friendly enough
that I see the CodeOfConduct as something that feels 'alien'.. why fix
something that isn't broken? Furthermore the community should already be
good enough to avoid such behaviour and the CodeOfConduct wouldn't add
anything new.
 
Above was my initial thought about it. But since reading the last
version of the CodeOfConduct and mailing that link a few times to people
'ranting' on bugzilla.gnome.org I started see the value of it. Having
them be 'guidelines' or whatever is not I want. Either make them
enforcing or not have them at all. Of course the enforcing part would be
more like 'this is how we currently behave and we want newcomers to
behave like that'. If people can't abide by the rules currently in the
CodeOfConduct (except maybe the concise part), I do not want to deal
with them. I do not care how many patches/translations/bugs they
make/triage/whatever. If they cannot 'behave normally' they should go
somewhere else.
 
I am not saying I never rant/troll/etc. It should also not be used to
create a community that can not deal with (constructive) criticism. Or
be stricly enforced (eg.. I do not want to get a long email the one time
I might or might not have violate one rule).
Whatever it is called 'Code' / 'Guidelines' / .. this difference should
always be understood.
 
 
(I probably 'violated' the 'Try to be concise' part. Oh well.)
 
PS: Reading the thread again I can s/probably 'violated'/'violated/ ;)


-- 
Regards,
Olav