Ean Schuessler writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> I feel we must see clearly that the CoC and its related ban punishment
> effectively amounts to a nascent "court system" for the project.
I don't think that's the case and I don't want to see it that way.
> A comprehensive ban is effectively a "death sentence" for its
> target because, from the perspective of the project, that person
> will cease to exist.
This isn't really true IMO. Someone who is banned can always send a
message privately to a sympathetic contributor, who can forward it if
it seems relevant or interesting. (I have in fact done this for a
contributor who was under some kind of cloud, when they had a relevant
and constructive contribution to make.)
I think that this is a very important practical safety net. It also
brings the possibility of a review.
> I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary
> feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent,
> policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and
> peer review.
I disagree. I don't think that making these processes heavyweight is
a good idea. I have had very poor experiences with "policy-driven"
processes of this kind.
I get the impression from your mail that you would vote against the
CoC in its current form. That's your prerogative, of course. Do you
intend to draft a counterproposal and if so how long do you expect
that process to take ? The CoC in its current form has been
extensively discussed on -project already, of course.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/21243.64746.711225.309...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
