Aron Xu - 01.01.20, 12:22:49 CET: > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 7:09 PM Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> wrote: > > Dear Sam. > > > > Sam Hartman - 31.12.19, 15:37:09 CET: > > > folks, emotions are very high at the moment. It would really help > > > if > > > you could let the discussion die down. If there are issues that > > > you > > > need to address, please reach out to da-manager, the listmaster, > > > DPL, > > > the community team, or anyone else who you think will hear you and > > > give you the help you're looking for. > > > > […] > > > > > We want to hear people even when they are very upset. Similarly, > > > we > > > don't want people to be provoked into being so upset that they > > > cannot > > > be heard. > > > > How does that go together, Sam? > > > > > I'm hoping that we can all cooperate to take a step back, and get > > > the > > > space we'll need to approach these issues in a sustainable manner > > > and > > > build the community we want to live in. > > > > > > Again, if you're hurting now and something needs attention, reach > > > out, but preferably not on the list. > > > > Why not? > > > > How is going to say "I feel hurt about the outcome of the GR" – > > personally I am not even sure whether I do – or "I think the GR did > > not serve the highest good of Debian" or something like that which > > is *respectful* and within the bounds of Code of Conduct, suddenly > > not acceptable anymore? > > I don't hold an opinion on which direction to go at least for now, but > I see a lot of mentions to Code of Conduct. Personally it doesn't > look like a good phenomenon that CoC is being mentioned all the way > down the path because it defines the bottom line of behavior which > could be referred when dealing with extreme cases.
I mentioned it as one of the officially available guide lines. The mailing list netiquette is another. > Our community is always driven by consensus reached with polite > communications, even if some appeared to be hot debates. Having a CoC > is a good progress on the establishment of community procedures and > documents, but to the best of my knowledge it is not intented to be a > single point of failure that it makes up an impression of anyone is > encouraged to do anything that is "not prohibited by CoC". I included "respectful" as a word for a reason. I also mentioned "harmlessness" and "mutuality" in other posts. So what I like to see and hold up my own behavior with goes beyond the CoC. On the other hand I do not intend to write down a huge and long list of – in my point of view – acceptable or not acceptable behavior into every mail I write. In no way I meant that anything goes as long it somehow abides to the CoC. So please do not put anything like that into my mouth. Thank you. Best, -- Martin
