Hello, >From Volker: > Why is it so important? If it makes you feel better to personally insult > somebody then PM me, I can take it. But I'm pretty sure that the authors > would be less happy to be called "big-dicked" than me.
I feel hurt by Volker's answer... should I report on sage-abuse? Nathann called nobody big as far as I can remember. At least you agree that it is a conspiracy. >From Andrew: > Hi Nathan, > > I participated in the initial drafting of the code. Our draft closely > follows, and was stolen from, similar codes of conduct from other projects. The main question of Nathann, which is really fundamental is: "why was it redacted by a small group of people and immediately proposed as a vote (and not as an open discussion)?". This is really what happend: the first message of the thread is the proposal of the code of honnor (by Volker) and the second is the proposal to vote about it (by William). You are right that there was a communication problem. But this was not presented in this way! > Ultimately all that it asks is that people be polite and respectful > towards others. I don't think that this very onerous. This has been discussed and I do not agree. The code of honor is not at all welcoming. I would have started any official text by "Anybody is welcome to contribute" or something like that. It looks much more: like if you do not agree with somebody then do not say it too loudly. > Volker's initial post asked everyone to (discuss and) vote on whether we > should adopt the code. That is, from the onset people were asked for their > opinion. If you reread the thread, when the discussion started becoming > heated William tried to close it. When that failed, he asked everyone to > vote on it. This looks quite democratic to me. Two questions: democracy is good ? I thought we were open to everyone, not only to the majority... this vote is democratic ? a yes/no vote that we have to do in two days on a text prepared in advance by a small group of people is not democratic. Even Volker was not able to vote because of his teaching. > This said, since the vote > was so close, and seemingly so contentious, I'm not sure we should adopt > it. Personally I would prefer to see it, or some variation of it, adopted > as guidelines -- having to "enforce" a code is contrary to the underlying > principle of being polite. +1 Let me say again on the list that I am in favor of having a text that define what is the sage community. And this has to be agreed by everyone and modified until a common consensus. A wiki page is open: http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageCommunityProposal > The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were > unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of > posts. I had tried talking off-list with the person making these to try and I really think that this should have been said before. This is really important to mention that some people were hurt. Anne Schilling mentioned some of it but it was never really discussed. It seems that it is the "hidden" subject of that proposal. And it is shameful that it ends with the creation of a police. > guidelines in the hope that this might help. I'm still a little baffled as > to why the suggestion that we try to being nice to each other is causing > such a commotion. You can not state "be nice" as an order. The only thing which makes sense is to say "welcome". Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
