Top posting because I'm restarting the conversation and don't want to get
distracted by declaring the awesomeness that is RichiH's response.
Richard, I'm so happy you responded as below. And, as much as it made me
hem, haw, and reevaluate my mission here (:)), I'm glad enrico expressed his
concern
Hey Gaudenz, et al.,
I fear we may have toppled over ourselves here a little. I didn't
mean to cause problems. I wasn't trying to push the LCA
code-of-conduct for $agenda. See
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20130821.09.f59c4a26.en.html
if you don't believe me. ;)
I simply wasn't awar
Hi
martin f krafft writes:
> Dear Rhonda,
>
> If you disagree with the currently proposed code of conduct, please
> submit an alternative version, or a diff. You know the rules.
>
> On the necessity of a code of conduct for the conference:
>
> I am myself not a friend of over-regulation, but so
Dear Rhonda,
If you disagree with the currently proposed code of conduct, please
submit an alternative version, or a diff. You know the rules.
On the necessity of a code of conduct for the conference:
I am myself not a friend of over-regulation, but sometimes it just
makes sense to regulate. If
Hi!
* martin f krafft [2014-05-02 16:18:24 CEST]:
> if I didn't love you so much, I would call you a witty troublemaker.
Starting off with a personal classification is surely helping get your
point across, don't you think so?
> I fully agree with you on everything you say and the link to
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:18:41PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Steve Langasek [2014-05-02 19:44 +0200]:
> > I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this should be
> > part of a CoC. If we accept that the dual purpose of the CoC is
> > to make people feel welcome who would
also sprach Steve Langasek [2014-05-02 19:44 +0200]:
> I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this should be
> part of a CoC. If we accept that the dual purpose of the CoC is
> to make people feel welcome who would otherwise fear being
> subjected to abuse and to remind people to be on t
On 05/02/2014 01:44 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this should be part of a
> CoC. If we accept that the dual purpose of the CoC is to make people feel
> welcome who would otherwise fear being subjected to abuse and to remind
> people to be on their bes
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 12:48:29PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Anthony Towns [2014-05-02 11:40 +0200]:
> > This means no swearing on this list, or in talks ("so yeah,
> > I tried that and royally firetrucked stuff up"), right?
> I would strongly advocate to keep a no-swearing defa
On May 2, 2014 2:49 PM, "Enrico Zini" wrote:
> [Good stuff]
I agree. To me, the CoC is a safety net and reference which exists, but
should not be invoked just so. It's there if you really need it but DebConf
as a social entity should be able to self-regulate in most if not all cases.
Richard,
W
Dear Enrico,
if I didn't love you so much, I would call you a witty troublemaker.
I fully agree with you on everything you say and the link to
emotional correctness is spot on.
However, neither you nor I are the target audience. And the
existence of a code of conduct does not make any change to
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 12:48:29PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Anthony Towns [2014-05-02 11:40 +0200]:
> > This means no swearing on this list, or in talks ("so yeah,
> > I tried that and royally firetrucked stuff up"), right?
> I would strongly advocate to keep a no-swearing defa
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:06:08PM -0700, Patty Langasek wrote:
> I appreciate any feedback on list, and on the wiki. Once we've
> come to an agreed upon CoC (or in 2 weeks, whichever happens first, and
> barring any serious concerns), I'll have it added to the main conference
> page and pushed i
also sprach Anthony Towns [2014-05-02 11:40 +0200]:
> This means no swearing on this list, or in talks ("so yeah,
> I tried that and royally firetrucked stuff up"), right?
I would strongly advocate to keep a no-swearing default. First of
all, I think it raises the quality altogether if people con
On 2 May 2014 10:06, Patty Langasek wrote:
> I've started piecing together a template for the DebConf (universal, note,
> not DebConf14) Code of Conduct[0]
Props.
One thing:
* Be inclusive
All presentation material should be suitable for people aged 12 and above.
Any public presentation
Hello!
We were recently asked to provide a Code of Conduct for DebConf. Due to
issues at other conferences, a written and enforcable Code of Conduct has
become the standard for other open source events. We're very fortunate that
we've not really needed one to the point, and I'm happy to spell out
16 matches
Mail list logo
