Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <d...@gnu.org> napisał: > >> What problem are we trying to solve here? >> > > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you > specific > examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from > newcomers.
> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from > newcomers. Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules with > an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly atmosphere is > debatable. I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of conduct, and I know within my company one employee will not attend a conference or participate in a project unless there is a code of conduct. I don't have any hard stats to prove this, but have a gut feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than it closes. > So in light of my personal experiences with this kind of backroom channel > (and it's worth noting that even the cited Linux developer list removed the > corrective measures part from the CoC they are using), I would very much like > to see some more imminent reason of why LilyPond would stand to benefit from > adopting a code and accepting a corrective committee that has basically > proposed itself rather than being the result of a list-wide election and > where just one member has been a permanent fixture on the lists for a longer > amount of time at this moment. A list-wide election is a good idea. At the Salzburg meetup, one common thing a lot of people brought up was a slow-down in development and a shrinking pool of contributors. IMO we should do several experiments to fix this. The CoC I proposed is used in over 40,000 projects including many of the most active and diverse open source projects on github, so it seems like a reasonable experiment. If it proves to be a dud, we can get rid of it. ~Mike
