Re: Code of Conduct final draft?

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:59 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > <quote who="Quim Gil">
> >> Doing the process of updating the charter would be a failure? I don't see
> >> why, this process could be healthy for the community, and the result would
> >> be stronger and more sounded. In the meantime the list of recommendations
> >> could be discussed, tested, improved, applied (it was being applied before
> >> being written in a wiki page anyway).
> > 
> > That's precisely the point. Whether it's the charter or a new document, it
> > is vastly more interesting to talk about the content and making it relevant
> > to the GNOME community than argue about what it should be called and where
> > it should go. This is just a diversion.
> 
> It appears the discussion has gotten to the stage where you're both
> talking semantics (all three, with Murray).
> 
> Here's the summary, as far as I can tell:
> 
> 1. We have the by-laws and charter. The by-laws are mostly legalese
> template, and the charter has been treated mostly as a historical data
> (it talks about the board providing technical direction, for example).
> 
> 2. Quim is suggesting that reminding people about the core principles of
> those two documents is more useful than making a third document official.
> 
> 3. Jeff and Murray are both proposing that we use the "Code^WGuidelines
> of conduct" as a basis to codify existing behavioural expectations of
> our community.
> 
> 4. 2 and 3 are the same thing. The GoC will be reminding people about
> the core values of our community. Jeff's been asking for a while that we
> actually look at the document, and see whether (as it is) it does
> represent those core values (which have their basis in our charter).

Replying to this bit only: If you mean, look at the Code Of Conduct
draft, then bear in mind that I have only intended it to mention
conduct, and I'd like to limit it to that for the sake of getting it
done.

> So can we do that, please?
> 
> Might I suggest killing this thread, it's outlived its usefullness. A
> new thread, with suggestions for additions or removals from the GoC ,
> will perhaps be more productive.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave.
> 
-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com