Re: Code of conduct (bis)
- From: Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>
- To: Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>
- Cc: Foundation-List <foundation-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Code of conduct (bis)
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:50:06 +0100
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:27:27PM +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> 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).
Well, it is not endorsed at the moment.
> > I did not agree with the initial version of the CoC. However, the
> > current can be interpreted as 'don't be a jerk'. Why would you want
> > to accept such persons?
> The definition of a jerk or being a jerk is bound to culture and
> cultural differences.
I translated the CoC into 'being a jerk'. The jerk part can be a culture
thing, that is why we have the CoC instead of 'do not be a jerk'.
> 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.
I disagree. You are changing my response into 'being a jerk' and arguing
on 'being a jerk'. I meant the CoC rules as something that specifies
what behaviour is not acceptable. This to avoid arguing about what a
If some behaviour is seen as being a jerk, but not written down in the
Coc, then we can discuss it when that happens.
> > 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.
I do not want to differentiate between people, I see that as nitpicking
(wastes time). That is why we have a CoC.
I do not see GNOME as 'free for all, behave like you want'. There are
some rules people should follow. If someone is not able to follow that,
GNOME is not for them (IMO).
> It has the task to suggest a meaningful and good suggestion on how to
> behave. Emphasis on the word "suggestion".
I disagree. Either follow it (without nitpicking -- everone has bad
days, blah blah blah) or be gone.
> "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
I agree. They can be a jerk somewhere else; however not within GNOME.
Meaning that freedom to do whatever you want is usually ok, but do not
try it within/near my house at 3.00 am.
> 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?
If you want to remove your signature when it becomes official, I suggest
to remove it when it becomes official. That is the way to ensure your
wish is respected, not by saying it in an mailinglist.
> 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.
It is someones own decision. However, the GNOME comes with it.
> 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.
I do not want to make it soft. Either follow them or be gone / do not
join. What I do disagree with is nitpicking (endless discussion about
maybe person X did not follow some rule possibly at one point), but that
is not in relation with being soft.
> 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 have no problem alienating people who cannot follow the CoC. I do not
think however we will alienate cultures. CoC should NOT be changed on a
whim to avoid a slippery slope (which is what you are referring to?).
> I disagree with that.
IMO we alienate *people* by allowing bad behaviour. It would be nice if
everyone could get along, etc. However, unfortunately a CoC is needed.
] [Thread Prev