Re: Code Of Conduct

["Kalle Vahlman" <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

2006/5/30, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>:
> 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.

In case it was left unclear, the smiley was for the whole paragraph.
The comment about developers was pretty visibly presented a while back
(I think in the context of spatial nautilus) and doesn't reflect my
attitude at all. I only brought it up since it seemed like a big issue
back then and there were some messages towards "not working on GNOME
anymore" because people felt that way. This didn't rate too high on
the "good PR for getting more contributors" list.

Haven't really seen anything like that after the discussion though, so
maybe it's already forgotten...

> > Seriosly, while a code of conduct is a good thing to follow, having it
> > written down somewhere immediately means enforcing it ("officially")
> > too.
> >
> > 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.

I thought it already was obvious to behave and be nice to people at
any time and any place. The ones that don't get that, probably won't
read the code of conduct either.

That said, I'm not against the CoC. I'm just not convinced it'll have
any positive effect, that's all.

> > ...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.

So it'll be the case with the code of conduct too, right? Let's just
hope then that it won't get too tedious.

--
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi
Powered by http://movial.fi
Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi