On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:25:01AM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 5/16/2018 11:07 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis > > <derek.buitenh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will, > >> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, > >> personal > >> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread > >> will > >> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic, > >> but history speaks for itself. > > > > 48 hours later and: > > - Some votes for repealing the CoC. > > - One vote for keeping > > 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. > > I'm up for keeping it or making it stricter. But it needs to be > enforced. So how do we get a dozen or so people to stop looking away > every time someone is a dick in a thread?
I have no magic bullet sadly, which is why i didnt reply. But if there is a consensus to enforce some CoC. Then it will be enforced. I think there is no such consensus though. And i dont (just) mean we lack consensus to kick people and close accounts, no not at all, it starts before that. Compare this to a case that has consensus. Like someone posting spam everyone will agree thats not ok or stay silent. Theres no lack of solutions and noone will need to write rules on how to deal with it. OTOH, when someone acts hostile. Most stay silent, someone might voice their opposition and chances are a few people will join either side depending on who they are better friends with. Now you have a problem and its difficult to handle with penalties, as there are 2 parties each beliving they are the good side and the other has done wrong. I think people should try to interpret others statements in a friendly way. Always try to act friendly and respectful towards others and try to help resolve conflicts and misunderstanings when they occur. When 2 people fight dont join the fight on the side of ones friend but try to resolve / stop the issue between the people ... Also iam not sure you are aware of it, but you have IMO been quite good at defusing / helping when there where conflicts/hostilities between people. I think we need more people with this talent [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Modern terrorism, a quick summary: Need oil, start war with country that has oil, kill hundread thousand in war. Let country fall into chaos, be surprised about raise of fundamantalists. Drop more bombs, kill more people, be surprised about them taking revenge and drop even more bombs and strip your own citizens of their rights and freedoms. to be continued
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
