Hi List, The following mail has been written on Tuesday before alot of the recent discussions. It hasn't been changed except for three passages, which I left out (marked with "[...]") which had no actual content, and don't make sense to be send to the list, but only to the actual addressee, who currently is unavailable. It is now "mirrored" here, to make sure it has a chance to be heared as input for the voting by the council, which will be soon today. Please note all of it is subjective of course, you might have a different point of view therefore. Additionally, please note English is _not_ my native language. Sorry for any inconvenience.
----------------------------- [...] > Hiya all, > > As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting > given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for > Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this > proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml > comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. > > Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in > order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at > 2100UTC. > > I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this > stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into > English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look > prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and > marienz for being sane and reading it over. > > I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and > answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. > > Christelx Hey, ahm - just read over it, and here is a list of things that i personally would change. [...] The majority is wording or slight changes only [...] I marked original versions with double quotes, those that I'd change without touching content with A and where i'd (mostly slightly only) change content with X. Notes are in brakets. Everything is in the order in which it appears in the current draft. X: I'd add a friendly note at the beginning, that everyone who has problems understanding the code can email xyz for help or ask #-userrel or so. A: Gentoo prides itself on being a community driven distribution. Everything we do is done with the best interest of the community at heart. [Simplifies language (It should be as easy to understand it as possible.), removes dublication of "we do"] X: We don't like making rules, but unfortunately with a community of this size it's necessary to have some ground rules firmly in place. ["in order for us to keep doing what we have been doing." isnt this clear? If it should be kept in, i'd use a second sentence like 'This is to keep work going on smoothly.' or ', in order to keep work going on.', "to keep doing what we have been doing" sounds somewhat bumpy] A: We want these rules to be completely transparent, consistently enforced and followed. [avoids numbers within the text, removes the "and" dublication.] X: By empowering people, we try to protect as many community members as possible from being offended or otherwise unhappy with the community. [I tried for a more positive wording of the same by not directly stating that it wont work (perfectly) anyway, yet i lost the part of avoiding "destructive behaviours or attitudes" without intention, although this was said in the sentence before yet, so it can maybe be left out without real effects - i searched for a way not to leave it out, i just couldnt find a nice one] A: "something is OK to post" --> 'okay to post' [more "formal"] even better would be "acceptable" to comply with the headline and wording used later on. however, a mail that is "okay" is better than one thats only "accepptable" so one might as well stick to 'okay' for that purpose. "it isn't, and" --> 'it isn't and' [is a comma needed here? am unsure.] "in any one thread." --> 'in this thread' or 'in the thread' "A comment made in" --> 'A comment written in' "consequences that you" --> 'consequences which you' X: Did you consider writing about the acceptable behaviour first? A: 'We do not take the decision to suspend or ban someone lightly [sounds better?] X: 'but sometimes it is neccessary.' or better 'however it is neccessary sometimes.' [ it would have "to happen" too, if you were sadists :-) no seriously, it reads better if something is needed, instead of "having to happen" in a way i cant quite explain ] A: removing "Below is a list of things that could get your access suspended." shouldnt change a thing, since "Things that could get you banned/suspended from [...]" is still there. "Please keep in mind that" might be removeable too (not the rest of the sentence of course.) "keep in mind that" it is a not-very-formal construction (which does not mean it is slang or sth of course, it just isnt very formal) "subjective one, and is based" --> ', which is based' X: I'd remove the ever in "you ever have questions" as "ever" refers to eternity in a way in that scope, thus the writer is more open to answering questions, if this "ever" is not there. difficult to explain, do you understand what i mean? I would even consider writing 'If you have a question about our decisions" as one question is of course enough to ask. "to talk to us" --> 'to ask us' since we talk about questions You might consider adding who exactly "us" is? userrel? all of gentoo? proctors? all of them? the one who did xyz? not anyone who didnt? X: You might, if it applies, add that the list of bad things is in no particular oder and doesnt claim to be complete. A: "Things that could get you" --> 'These things could get you' ["that" is always not-very-good style] "Usually, you" --> 'Usually you' [comma not needed here] "wouldn't" --> 'will not' "warning, but" --> "warning. Nevertheless" "pretty serious"; pretty primarily means "nice", and only in a colloquial context it can be used as "very" "large" "susbstantial" etc. and thus should be replaced. "we take each" --> 'we consider each' [take is one of those universal words like "put", consider is a more narrow word, thus better here i'd say] "basis and make" --> "basis to make" ['and' isnt a nice word, everyone uses it too often ] I would write "to make sure we always reached a consensus for our decision." [ it is 'your' decision, thus not any decision, thus no "whatever". 'our decision' is still completely open regarding its content. also "whatever" is less formal anyway i think ] same applies to "have a consensus". 'reaching one' sounds better, and stresses it a bit more. the "we reach" at the end isnt needed anymore if you use 'our' as this makes clear it's yours. X: did you also consider 'disinformation'? disinformation is wrong _on purpose_ as it tries to deceive, while "misinformation" is wider, and can also be used if it was wrong by accident. A: "It is possible to challenge someone (respectfully, of course), in a way that empowers without being judgemental." I do not understand the meaning of this sentence. did you mean 'that encourages' instead of empoweres? I dont get it. anyway, i would remove the brakets: 'someone respectfully, in' [brakets mark additional or optional things, and the "of course" reverses that. it is like sqrt(5^2) = 5 in a way (it is both plus and mines 5, i know - ignore that for a second)] A: "Posting/participating" --> 'Participating' [If you write "Drive/Move to" you make the first one unneccessary, as the 2nd word is no synonym but has a wider meaning and thus removes the narrowing of the 1st one anyway...] X: I would remove "rather than to tactfully share information." as the code should, afaict now, apply to virtually everything, even a nonsense discussion on irc/forums that is there just for fun. Imagine "tactfully sharing information" in a thread titled "post you favourite jokes here!" or "do you like xyz?" (remember we got the "off the wall" section in the forums, the official off-topic ground) X: Why do you consider courteousness being something someone has to earn, has to work for? I'd just remove this passage. You should be courteous to people you never saw before, too. for instance if you jostle someone, or as for the time. [those "you"s are not you, christel personally, but anyone] And even if you just got attacked, and thus in your eyes this person now wouldnt deserve your tactfullness anymore, it shouldnt be allowed not to be impolite because of this as exactly the "fighting back" is what makes flamewars start. therefore it would rather write something like "Always be courteous. Stick to your tactfullness even if someone was impolite agains you. Do not 'fight back'." A: for consistency "Giving accurate information" --> 'Give ...' [everything is in imperative] "The operative word here is RESPECTFULLY." shows the former sentence is unclear. why dont you use 'Challenging or disagree with other members respectfully.' [challenge at the beginning, as it is bad to start a sentence with imperative "disagree" and this way the bumpy construction "with or" is avoided, thus the preposition is not followed by a conjunction, which isnt nice] "Using the" --> 'Use the' (same as Giving --> give) You used plural "bug reports and idle chatter" but singular "discussion", which i'd change to 'discussions about' ... 'probably do not'. Remove "when made", it isnt needed, and "make" is one of those universal words like take, too. "Noone" --> "No one" "you will get" --> "you might get" [I dont want to claim there are people who succeeded in never getting anything wrong, yet it is more polite that way] "Don't" --> "Do not" stresses the not, is more formal. I'd remove "also" and "any" in "They will also be watching many of the public fora for any problems". ["Also" besides what else? they only watch public fora. and "any" just isnt needed, and sounds better without.] "can not" --> "cannot" "The proctors will, in the first instance, attempt" ---> 'In the first instance, the proctors will attempt' [besides, is it "the proctors" or "proctors" only, in that case?] Did you consider changing "appropriate" to 'needed'? You set up your rules hoping for common sense - anyway one could abuse "If this does not produce results" to argue that there were results: It got even worse. Changing that to 'If this does not produce acceptable results' will prevent this. "there are various options open to the proctors, including" --> 'the proctors have various options, including:' [easier to read, sticks closer to the simplest of all, the subject-verb-object sentence (it almost is one)] The "open" is ugly and not needed in my changed word order, i therefore left it out. Note that i used a colon, to start the enumeration and shorten the sentence. X: "Any action of this sort will require consensus from at least three proctors." --> 'Any action of this sort requires documented consensus of at least three proctors.' [consider adding 'documented' here, maybe. plus i changed 'will require' to 'requires' because as soon as this is enforced, it is not a 'will' anymore, plus it is "the opinion of us" and thus the "consensus of three proctors, not form - or am i wrong with that?] A: "Remember, the moment you participate in a public discussion on the Gentoo fora, you have made yourself a representative of the Gentoo community." --> 'When you participate in a public discussion on the Gentoo fora, you represent the Gentoo community.' [the moment == when, i dont make myself one, but i automagically become a part of it, i'd use making here if that was the primary aim only i think. plus i am not a representitive of it, like the userreps are. representitives are elected or so - i rather represent it, there is a difference] Feel free to ask is something is unclear, of course. Ciao, Daniel P.S.: The mail got quite long, i know. sorry for that, didnt manage to get it shorter. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
