On Wed, 16 May 2018 15:44:36 +0100 Derek Buitenhuis <derek.buitenh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the issue is not the lack of clear enforcement rules, but a lack > > of a proactive enforcer, be it a person or a body. The CoC has done > > nothing but give people something to say when they want to be passive > > aggressive in a discussion. > > Changing it to a more strict one like Videolan's will not affect that. > > > > This lack of interest you mentioned is exactly the issue. If it all > > depends on the coordinated action and involvement of a dozen or so > > developers, then nothing will happen. As i said, the one time action was > > called for a developer's behavior, no voter showed up. > > So how does one fix a toxic environment where most of the members > don't care, or don't even aknowledge it's an issue? Let it hemmorage > people, keeping a few here and there who can "take it" (which IMO is > a load of gross gatekeeping BS)? > > (Yes, As far as I'm concerned, staying away / not replying / doing nothing > si just an implicit way of saying "I'm fine with the community as it is". ) > > I actually don't have much of a solution to the "nobody willing to step > up" problem, though, no. The offical documents should at least reflect > that reality then, though. A CoC that is ignored, is not a CoC. True, in that case it's better to remove the CoC because it's completely misleading about our community. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
