On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 01:35:05PM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> If a single person (or a small group) organizes the decision process for
> the community, then it is not by the community. I think this
> organizational task is also a collective task (this prevents situations
> like the one that is happeni
>
> Agreed. Most everybody would consider it a very positive outcome if
> there were a replacement "thing of conduct" that addresses the
> concerns many people have raised and gets passed almost unanimously.
>
>
Please yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
On 2014-11-29, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_66_1749519742.1417259350569
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="=_Part_67_832209070.1417259350569"
>
> --=_Part_67_832209070.1417259350569
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Friday, November 28, 2014 4:58
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:40:16PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:09:44AM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> > OK, sorry if i misunderstood, you seemed to support a vote about that
> > (even proposing a third alternative name) since your message was:
>
> A *poll*, not a *vo
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:18:26PM +, Simon King wrote:
> If I understand correctly what William and Volker are saying, they claim
> it is too late for a change anyway,
Please reread. William has explicitly, and in several emails, stated
the converse.
Cheers,
N
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:09:44AM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> OK, sorry if i misunderstood, you seemed to support a vote about that
> (even proposing a third alternative name) since your message was:
A *poll*, not a *vote*. A poll sounds useful to get a sense of where
the community stands to know bet
On Friday, November 28, 2014 4:58:35 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:
> If you want to understand how I feel about that name, add
> to that doc a subtitle "Mein Kampf" :-)
>
How about "Godwin's Law": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:27:38PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> > No, there is no consensus at all. It is not because a few people are going
> > round on some naming issue that all other issues are settled (not even
> > that parti
On Saturday, 29 November 2014 02:04:41 UTC+11, mmarco wrote:
>
> I definitely like the idea of "guidelines" over "code of conduct".
>
As one of the people who voted yes, I definitely prefer guidelines.
I also think that those who care should work towards editing the
"guidelines" on the wiki
On Friday, November 28, 2014 11:37:20 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Maldun,
>
> On 2014-11-28, maldun > wrote:
> > So far as I understand, this code/guidline/whatever does not serve as a
> > law, or is written in stone,
> > nor does it say: "If you don't behave as stated in the code, you
On Friday, November 28, 2014 11:04:08 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2014-11-28 15:48 UTC−06:00, maldun >:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I quite watched this discussion for this so called code of conduct.
> There
> > are a lot of
> > opponents of this idea and I wonder why.
>
> Please tell
2014-11-28 23:43 GMT+01:00 Simon King :
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 2014-11-28, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please tell me who? As far as I read, nobody proposed to have nothing.
>
> I did propose to have nothing.
>
> I still think that setting good examples is vastly superio
Hi Vincent,
On 2014-11-28, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please tell me who? As far as I read, nobody proposed to have nothing.
I did propose to have nothing.
I still think that setting good examples is vastly superiour to *any*
kind of written rules. However, I acknowle
Hi Maldun,
On 2014-11-28, maldun wrote:
> So far as I understand, this code/guidline/whatever does not serve as a
> law, or is written in stone,
> nor does it say: "If you don't behave as stated in the code, you will be
> teared feathered and be banned forever!"
It is the experience of some pe
Hi Volker,
On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun wrote:
> No. Just "code" can be short for: "code of law", and that is what the
> dictionary entry says. But "code of foo" for foo!=law is not a kind of
> "code of law".
Reading my posts, you certainly noticed that I did not claim that a
"code of conduct
Hi,
I updated a proposition at the very end of the wiki page
http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct
It is not aimed to be finished or proposed to vote right now. No
usurpation please.
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To
Hi,
2014-11-28 15:48 UTC−06:00, maldun :
> Hi all!
>
> I quite watched this discussion for this so called code of conduct. There
> are a lot of
> opponents of this idea and I wonder why.
Please tell me who? As far as I read, nobody proposed to have nothing.
We are just discussing what. You are we
Hi all!
I quite watched this discussion for this so called code of conduct. There
are a lot of
opponents of this idea and I wonder why.
So far as I understand, this code/guidline/whatever does not serve as a
law, or is written in stone,
nor does it say: "If you don't behave as stated in the cod
On Friday, November 28, 2014 7:05:06 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:
>
> Not only to us. According to the American Heritage dictionary that I
> quoted in a previous post, that association exists in (American)
> English, too.
>
No. Just "code" can be short for: "code of law", and that is what the
dic
On Nov 28, 2014 12:21 PM, "Simon King" wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> On 2014-11-28, William Stein wrote:
> > Yes, I created it. The members are me, David Joyner (sage Dev #2), and
> > Harald Schilly.
>
> Interesting. Previously there was talk about the 12 (or so) main
> contributors of Sage code b
>> - If there is a "violation" of a code of conduct, it means that it
>> was a rule. I like very much the modification of Anne about how to
>> behave when such a "violation" occurs (people are not police).
>
> Apparently I missed it. Can you point me to what Anne said? Anyway, I
> totally agree th
A short voting period certainly makes the result open to dispute.
Anyone wishing to post anything offensive to some people will
be unlikely to abide by some code which he/she might not have
read, anyway. Sage-flame is always there, anyway.
RJF
>
--
You received this message because you are subs
Hi William,
On 2014-11-28, William Stein wrote:
> Yes, I created it. The members are me, David Joyner (sage Dev #2), and
> Harald Schilly.
Interesting. Previously there was talk about the 12 (or so) main
contributors of Sage code becoming members of that list.
Best regards,
Simon
--
You rec
2014-11-28 20:24 GMT+01:00 Simon King :
> Hi Viviane,
>
> On 2014-11-28, Viviane Pons wrote:
> > As a "yes" voter, I would be totally in favor of changing the name to
> > "guidelines".
>
> So, technically, your "yes" vote should in fact be counted as "no",
> because the vote was about a specific
- William Stein (cell phone)
On Nov 28, 2014 11:32 AM, "Simon King" wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 2014-11-28, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you treat people like children, you should not expect from them
> > to be adults.
>
> +1
>
> > - The previous vote ended with
Hi Nicolas,
On 2014-11-28, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> I am not saying that it suffices to change the name. Yet from all I
> heard in the previous discussion I don't foresee any strong obstacle
> on building a consensus on *some* document.
I somehow agree.
> Yes there is no rush. Yes this will t
Hi Vincent,
On 2014-11-28, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you treat people like children, you should not expect from them
> to be adults.
+1
> - The previous vote ended with the creation of a new discussion list
> sage-ab...@googelgroups.com that no one has voted fo
Hi Viviane,
On 2014-11-28, Viviane Pons wrote:
> As a "yes" voter, I would be totally in favor of changing the name to
> "guidelines".
So, technically, your "yes" vote should in fact be counted as "no",
because the vote was about a specific version of the text?
> I'm also in favor of voting a n
Hi Nicolas,
On 2014-11-28, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> Ah, thanks for running this poll! I have been meaning to do it, but
> did not get the time; it indeed feels like that the discussion is
> going in round when there is a rather clear consensus emerging.
>
> As I said earlier, I'd be very fine w
On 2014-11-28, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:
>
> We will never understand. Give it up ! It is unfortunate, but to us
> "code" is associated with "law".
Not only to us. According to the American Heritage dictionary that I
quoted in a previous post, th
Hi Volker,
On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun wrote:
> No, there is no association beyond the codified = written down. Of course
> the writing down part that is in "code of law". I'll leave it as an
> exercise to identify "code of ..." in English that are not enforcable laws.
Read the link that I pro
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> No, there is no consensus at all. It is not because a few people are going
> round on some naming issue that all other issues are settled (not even
> that particular issue either).
I am not saying that it suffices to change the name. Yet f
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:08:47AM -0800, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
> >Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the
> >term 'code of conduct'
> >Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accep
It is not an opposition of terms "code of conduct" vs "guidelines" or
whatever. The main problem is not the title but the form and some of
the content! Let me point out what I found very bad in it
- All paragraphs are orders
Be [...]
Be [...]
Be [...]
If you treat people like chi
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Viviane Pons wrote:
> As a "yes" voter, I would be totally in favor of changing the name to
> "guidelines". As Nathann pointed out, we're not Django or Fedora and even
> though they can be source of inspiration, we don't have to do something just
> because they do.
As a "yes" voter, I would be totally in favor of changing the name to
"guidelines". As Nathann pointed out, we're not Django or Fedora and even
though they can be source of inspiration, we don't have to do something
just because they do. Also, the linguistic debate about what "code" means
is a bit
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:08:47AM -0800, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
>Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the
>term 'code of conduct'
>Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accept the term
>'guidelines' instead with content as is
>Question 3: wh
On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_6745_1715951226.1417191747103
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="=_Part_6746_1434359819.1417191747103"
>
> --=_Part_6746_1434359819.1417191747103
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Let me try a last time, j
> Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:
We will never understand. Give it up ! It is unfortunate, but to us
"code" is associated with "law".
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group an
Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:
A book of laws is a book, but not every book is a book of laws.
On Friday, November 28, 2014 4:12:47 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > No, there is no association beyond the codified = written down.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_
> No, there is no association beyond the codified = written down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_code
This is the kind of association we all have in mind.
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this g
On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:02:24 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:
>
> Unfortunately that is exactly what is not the problem here. The
> association of "code of conduct" with codified law exists in English
>
No, there is no association beyond the codified = written down. Of course
the writing down p
On 2014-11-28, William Stein wrote:
> --001a1140e10cc7331a0508ecdbd1
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Nov 28, 2014 7:17 AM, "Simon King" wrote:
>>
>> Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 16:06:55 UTC+1 schrieb William:
>>>
>>> > Could someone please answer the question about further proc
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 16:24:37 UTC+1 schrieb William:
>
> > I see. That's the old trick of putting something on vote while it is
> still discussed. As a result, some people don't realise that the vote is
> exactly about the current state, and that one shouldn't vote "yes" but "no"
> if o
On Nov 28, 2014 7:17 AM, "Simon King" wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 16:06:55 UTC+1 schrieb William:
>>
>> > Could someone please answer the question about further proceeding (I
asked twice already): Do I understand correctly that there will be some
editing on http://wiki.sagemath.org/Co
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 16:06:55 UTC+1 schrieb William:
>
> > Could someone please answer the question about further proceeding (I
> asked twice already): Do I understand correctly that there will be some
> editing on http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct before publishing the
> code of c
Yooo !
> Sorry, I first didn't see your reply. I am not sure about the common
> etiquette for wiki pages.
Yes, I agree that it is messy. I think that we should feel free to
edit whatever we like (while trying to respect the spirit somehow)
otherwise we will keep adding stuff from fear of chan
Hi Nathann,
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 15:11:30 UTC+1 schrieb Nathann Cohen:
>
> Hello !
>
> > Will this be done by editing http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct or
> > will a separate document be created?
>
> I guess the situations is already sufficiently chaotic as it is :-P I
> added th
On Nov 28, 2014 7:02 AM, "Simon King" wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 15:44:08 UTC+1 schrieb Volker Braun:
>>
>> On Friday, November 28, 2014 1:09:38 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. If you need
>>> frenglish lessons I can give you s
I definitely like the idea of "guidelines" over "code of conduct".
El viernes, 28 de noviembre de 2014 15:08:48 UTC+1, Jakob Kroeker escribió:
>
> As already mentioned by others, the bad thing (at least from my point of
> view) is that the 'code of conduct' splits the community.
> To reduce the
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 15:44:08 UTC+1 schrieb Volker Braun:
>
> On Friday, November 28, 2014 1:09:38 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. If you need
>> frenglish lessons I can give you some. It is very simple: just speak
>> french with an
On Friday, November 28, 2014 1:09:38 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. If you need
> frenglish lessons I can give you some. It is very simple: just speak
> french with an english accent. Of course most words will not
> translate, but you have to
Hi!
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 15:08:48 UTC+1 schrieb Jakob Kroeker:
>
> Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the term
> 'code of conduct'
> Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accept the term
> 'guidelines' instead with content as is
> Question 3: wh
Hello !
> Will this be done by editing http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct or
> will a separate document be created?
I guess the situations is already sufficiently chaotic as it is :-P I
added the paragraph block to that page:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct
Whoever wants can modify it
As already mentioned by others, the bad thing (at least from my point of
view) is that the 'code of conduct' splits the community.
To reduce the dissonance among us we could agree on something with broader
support.
Otherwise I hope that this discussion will end at some point, and I will
try to f
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 13:39:51 UTC+1 schrieb Volker Braun:
>
> On Thursday, November 27, 2014 3:27:23 AM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it
>> could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code.
>
>
> I
> I welcome your enthusiasm but please can we stick to established nomenclature?
> If you insist on not calling it "Code" then please also
> explain why Fedora and Django have made a mistake in naming it.
O_o
Dear friend, I am getting slowly convinced that one of us is crazy.
Assuming, as I canno
Hi Volker,
On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun wrote:
>> I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it
>> could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code.
>
>
> I welcome your enthusiasm but please can we stick to established
> nomenclature? If you insist
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 3:27:23 AM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it
> could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code.
I welcome your enthusiasm but please can we stick to established
nomenclature? I
Hi John, hi all,
On 2014-11-26, john_perry_usm wrote:
> At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good
> idea to amend with a clause to the following effect:
>
> On the other hand, we have to remember that the very fact that Sage
>> developers come from different cultu
>
> At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good
> idea to amend with a clause to the following effect:
>
I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it
could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code. It says
what you c
61 matches
Mail list logo
