Re: Code Of Conduct
- From: Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>
- To: zuh iki fi
- Cc: foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Code Of Conduct
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 19:39:52 +0200
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 20:15 +0300, Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> I thought the main deterrent was arrogant and dictator-like developers
> who pat each other in the back and ignore the requests of users.
> Adding more rules seems pointless there ;)
That's not very nice, and I don't believe that it's accurate. It's this
kind of aggressive attacking style that I think we should try to avoid,
and which we usually do avoid. It just upsets people unnecessarily.
> Seriosly, while a code of conduct is a good thing to follow, having it
> written down somewhere immediately means enforcing it ("officially")
> Which means it will be hacked to pieces with interpetations of it
> ("was this a minor incident or was it a grave mistake? But the other
> guy said this and that"). Which means there will be a need to define
> the correct interpetation of the code...
We need to make it fairly obvious that that kind of pointless
unproductive behaviour doesn't belong in our community. We don't need
more long irrelevant threads.
> ...which will mean assigning a commitee to evaluate the definitions and ...
> Ok, maybe I'm being somewhat pessimistic about this.
> But then again, isn't the HIG read as a law and questioned in terms of
> interpetations way too often, while its purpose is only to remind and
> suggest known good behaviour?
I think it's mostly used in the correct way. But it's normal for
beginners to take time to understand how best to use it.
murrayc murrayc com
] [Thread Prev