On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 21:39:47 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Knadle writes:
> > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Ean Schuessler writes:
> >>> I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not
> >>> require a record keeping process. I actually
Chris Knadle writes:
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ean Schuessler writes:
>>> I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not
>>> require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we
>>> should not be concerned about publicly a
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ean Schuessler writes:
> > I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require
> > a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not
> > be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban
Ean Schuessler writes:
> I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require
> a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not
> be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been
> proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable
- "Ian Jackson" wrote:
> This isn't really true IMO. Someone who is banned can always send a
> message privately to a sympathetic contributor, who can forward it if
> it seems relevant or interesting. (I have in fact done this for a
> contributor who was under some kind of cloud, when they
Ean Schuessler writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> I feel we must see clearly that the CoC and its related ban punishment
> effectively amounts to a nascent "court system" for the project.
I don't think that's the case and I don't want to see it that way.
> A comprehensive ban is eff
Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> > > 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the "mailinglist
> > >code of conduct" at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> >
> > Is this overriding the listmasters then?
...
> I'll leave it up to the sec
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:25:12PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:59 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
> > ## Assume good faith
> >
> > Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a
> > [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system whic
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a
> desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold
> true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the
> evidence collected, the criteria the evidence
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:59 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> ## Assume good faith
>
> Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a
> [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may
> differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:45 -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>
> It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a
> desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should
> hold true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the
> evidence collected, the crit
- "Wouter Verhelst" wrote:
> # Debian Code of Conduct
...
> ## In case of problems
>
> Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently
> banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should
> be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian commun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/2014 05:59 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> == 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct
> for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes
> of communication within the project.
>
> 2. The initial text of
Hi,
Wouter Verhelst:
> The position statement really only is the "we accept a code of conduct"
> part. Everything else isn't.
>
> Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline
> with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so.
>
I would propose an initial CoC as int
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:13:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:40:17AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed
> > by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think
> > this is enti
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:40:17AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi Wouter,
>
> Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I
> think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons.
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 1. The Debian pro
Hi Wouter,
Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I
think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
>participants to its mailing
Hi all,
This is to propose a general resolution under ยง4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
This code of conduct has been drafted during debconf, and been refined
during a BoF session there and in a discussion on the debian-project
mailinglist. For more details, please s
18 matches
Mail list logo
