> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Derick Rethans <der...@derickrethans.nl> >> wrote: >>> >>> I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, >>> but there are a few points I want to make. >> >> if you still insists on some CoC, maybe you could at least look into >> something else than the "Contributor Covenant"? >> >> For example, http://code-of-merit.org/ seems much more reasonable in >> "getting the things done" than the Covenant. > > Sure - I would very much appreciate a list of things to look at. Would > you have time to suggest a list with C of C's? It is unlikely that one > will cover it all anyway. Something that (stolen the idea from twitter) > has a good list of *positive* core values is also in my opinion > important to have. > > cheers, > Derick
Hi Derick, I noticed you were contacted by Randi Lee Harper [https://archive.is/b8RDW], the ironically abusive founder of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative [https://archive.is/eqco9][http://archive.is/A1Azz] known for attacking and attempting to eject from projects/employment people she associates with groups she doesn’t approve of [http://archive.is/1A8SQ], wherein she suggested that you ignore the Code of Merit that Pavel recommended for consideration because she associates the author of said code with a group that—though entirely unrelated to his Open Source contributions—she finds undesirable and then proceeded to make general derogatory comments about him [again, https://archive.is/b8RDW]. (My deepest apologies for such a tremendous run-on sentence.) I certainly hope this isn’t indicative of the spirit of this proposal. This exchange really seems to suggest the goal of these codes in general, and now possibly this one in particular, is what so many of us have feared: to exclude people with wrong ideas and associations, as defined by the in-group. Kevin Smith Hearsay Interactive <http://gohearsay.com/>
