On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > In addition, a list of "do not"s will make people assume that the > > project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one > > participant of the CoC BoF during debconf, when the draft CoC was still > > somewhat negative: "I get the feeling, if I read this code of conduct, > > that Debian is a very problematic community with lots of problems." > > > I don't want our code of conduct to produce that feeling. > > There's been a very strong and quite successful push recently to > convince organisations to adopt codes of conduct so at this point the > usual suggestion for people worrying about it being a sign of problems > is to point people at the list of other organisations doing the same > thing.
There is indeed a large group of organisations having a code of conduct. However, the list of organizations with a code of conduct with such a list is short. So this argument doesn't really hold, IMO. > The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing > Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to > realise what appropriate behaviour is. Personally I do tend to share > some of the concerns about rules lawyering and evasion with that but > it's a reasonable view and I suspect you don't win either way. I could see how a separate document, with an explicit list of "do not"s, could usefully be linked from the "further reading" section. I think we should not make such a list authoritative. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140324203518.gb31...@grep.be
