Re: Code of conduct (bis)

[Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>]

On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 18:53 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:

> > I signed the code of conduct under the strict condition that there is no
> > official enforcement of these principles, and that it should not be
> > interpreted like a legal document.
> 
> s/condition/assumption/ ?

No. It's a condition that I put next to my signature. Not an assumption.

If the condition is false, my signature is invalid. If that isn't
possible, then I'll unsign now (just let me know).

> I did not agree with the initial version of the CoC. However, the
> current can be interpreted as 'don't be a jerk'[1]. Why would you want
> to accept such persons?

The definition of a jerk or being a jerk is bound to culture and
cultural differences.

The version of 'being a jerk' in the Belgian village where I live
differs from the version of three villages from where I live. Its
definition differs between the version of my own parents and the parents
of my girlfriend. It (therefore) differs between my girlfriends
definition and my own definition.

It cannot, by definition, have the same definition when we are talking
about cultures and nations.

Your example of 'being a jerk' is the perfect example of why these
principles should never be officially enforced.

> If some culture thinks it is ok to be a jerk, then I do not want to deal
> with them. Well, it is more that I do not accept them being jerks.
> Either change or be gone.

It's fine that you do not want to deal with them. I don't want do deal
with jerks (in my own definition of it) either. It's, however, not the
task of the GNOME organisation nor its community to differentiate
between jerks nor to define who is and who isn't a jerk nor to define
the meaning of the word jerk nor any of all this.

It has the task to suggest a meaningful and good suggestion on how to
behave. Emphasis on the word "suggestion".


"I might disagree with what you have to say. But I will defend, to the
death, your right to say it. I expand this to being a jerk. Everything
that even comes a little bit close to trying to touch it: I'm against
it."

Which doesn't mean that I can't disagree. Taking away my right to
disagree would be a violation by itself.


> In the CoC you can see it *is* used for GNOME Bugzilla, and
> unfortunately 1 person has been banned because of his behaviour (after
> warnings).
> I see the CoC as a easy reference I can point to. I have no problem
> banning someone from GNOME Bugzilla or any mailinglist if some person
> cannot behave themselves; for me the CoC is a pre-warning. This only for
> extreme/obvious cases, I do not like nitpicking.
> 
> > Automatically unsign me once it becomes an official enforcement. I
> > repeat again: my signature is not a tool to make these principles
> > official. Not at all.
> 
> I suggest you do that yourself when it happens.

If it's not possible that the person or group who makes this an official
enforcement also removes my signature, I will remove mine right now.

Is it or isn't it possible?

It doesn't mean that I disagree with the content of the principles
themselves. I do agree. I just don't want to enforce them. I do want to
suggest them. It should be your free will, your OWN decision, whether or
not you will behave like described in the principles.

An official enforcement would be the exact same thing as saying to
people that they are simply not welcome unless they DO behave like these
principles. It doesn't matter how soft you make it sound. Making it an
official enforcement, or a policy, makes it hard. That, I specifically
disagree with.

If it's not going to be you, who makes this hard, then it's going to be
somebody else behind your back (in a few years, when you'll wear the old
farts of GNOME hat). It would be naive to think that we, the GNOME
community, are above the same mistakes other people also make. We most
likely are not. We will alienate cultures, just like everybody else in
this world does. Because we want them to be like, to behave like and
finally to be us.

I disagree with that.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://www.pvanhoof.be/blog