Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

[Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>]

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 23:53 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:

Hi Andy,

> On Fri 13 Nov 2009 22:27, Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron Sun COM> writes:
> 
> > Minutes for Meeting of October 29th, 2009
> [...]
> >       More generally, we need to make sure that GNOME Foundation members
> >       sign the GNOME Code of Conduct, and perhaps make it a requirement
> >       for new members to sign. Also need to update the GNOME blog and
> >       planet so that it is more clear that people should follow the
> >       GNOME Code of Conduct.
> 
> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> First, the planet has always been under editorial control; it has a
> maintainer, like any other module -- actually a few of them.
> 
> Therefore, what is or is not on the planet may fairly be seen to be
> under the purview of the maintainer(s), who are there due to their
> respected position in the field of their module, in this case in the
> "public discourse" of GNOME. So they can promote or censure certain
> kinds of speech as they see fit.

I'm glad that you write this, Andy. 

This is how I see it too. I often still get told that this is not the
case and that each individual blogger is himself responsible.

That way it's chaotic and very hard to manage, enforce.

I agree that each individual blogger should consider that each article,
that he puts in a category that he gave the planet maintainers, can
appear on the planet. He's responsible for his own blog and reputation.

but

I too think that in the end the planet is a project like any other
GNOME-one, with its own maintainers and, thus, editorial control. What
is or is not on the planet may indeed be seen to be under the purview of
those maintainers (in my opinion).

Furthermore I don't think it's censorship or wrong to skip blog posts,
if a planet maintainer doesn't want it on the planet. Maybe it should be
possible to ask the project members why a blog article got skipped?
Maybe some guidelines need to be set up? Sure (is a maintainer decision)

> Secondly, binding or pseudo-binding resolutions on the Foundation
> membership should probably be ratified by the Foundation membership
> itself via some more formal process. As it is I don't think a majority
> have "signed" the CoC. (FWIW, I have.)

Before committing ourselves to require it, I think we'd first need to
convince all current members to sign the CoC themselves. 

Else it'll be a quagmire of people who have and people don't have to,
and people who had to sign it. (FWIW, I have.)

I'm not against requiring this. I'm against public punishments for
people who violate it. I'm not against telling somebody in private to
chill: "Assume people mean well" is an important advice in the Coc.


Greetings,


Philip

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