Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote:

> I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out
> of GNOME, or gets you shunned.  A Terms of Service for hosted sites
> which gets your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if
> it is very narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc.  However
> as we move into the realm of who offended who it gets dicey and
> predicated on the sentiments of who is making the final call.  We've
> survived the oGalaxys and Bowie Poags of the past and I don't think I
> have seen any worse conduct.  I'm defering to the board if they really
> feel they need an enshrined document but there should be a vote on the
> final draft if we go in this direction.

I (fully) agree with John here.

The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.

It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the
Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added.

> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot <ploum ploum net>
> wrote:
>         I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated.
>         How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy
>         will we
>         spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer
>         is A.
>         How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that
>         might fit
>         every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case?
>         Answer is B.
>         I expect A << B by at least one order of magnitude.
>         What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are
>         offended by
>         the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but
>         it's a
>         problem. A rare one but still a problem.
>         What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on
>         that
>         particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect.
>         There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo.
>         This was
>         never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by
>         case basis.
>         Anyway, there are always people offended by everything.
>         When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start
>         developing a
>         framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has
>         already been
>         done, it's called J2EE)
>         Cheers,
>         Lionel
>         On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters
>         <stormy peters gmail com>
>         wrote:
>         > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman
>         <muks banu com> wrote:
>         >
>         >>
>         >> I think this is taking it too far. The "Code of Conduct"
>         being
>         >> presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise
>         to make it
>         >> policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I
>         can and
>         >> cannot say/do in public.
>         >>
>         >
>         > We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
>         > blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we
>         host and
>         > I think we can (and
>         > do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For
>         example, if
>         someone
>         > started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.
>         >
>         > (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most
>         public
>         places
>         > there are laws you have to follow.)
>         >
>         > Stormy
>         _______________________________________________
>         foundation-list mailing list
>         foundation-list gnome org
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org

Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]