lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 16:17:29 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Karlin High <address@hidden> writes:

> I think the Code of Conduct discussion is reaching (or has reached)
> the point of exhaustion and is unlikely to be productive if continued 
> further in current directions. It seems there is pretty strong
> opposition to adopting the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct as 
> originally proposed.
>
> I'm thankful for the occasion to self-reflect on Lilypond's discussion
> environment. I've been thinking about this a lot. A point was made 
> earlier that the expectation of having Codes of Conduct in open-source
> communities is not going to go away. In that case, I think it would be 
> best to "fill the vacuum" and adopt something everyone finds
> acceptable. That, as opposed to having a sufficiently-influential
> outside party demand adoption of a Code the community doesn't want, as
> happened to the SQLite project.
>
> In the spirit of the recent "RFC" posts that explore different future
> directions, I think I could soon propose something for a Code of 
> Conduct. (It draws on some centuries-old traditions of community
> conflict resolution.)
>
> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To
> me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>
> Question: Would this opposition apply to all Codes of Conduct as a
> matter of principle? Or just to the particular one that was proposed, 
> and you'd consider supporting a more-acceptable alternative?
>
> And, would you like to see an alternative proposal...

I've proposed looking at the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines as
something that one can point to and aim to heed.
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html>.  It has
certainly worthwhile advice.  I don't see that an approach focused on
providing a promise of punishment and removal will really work for the
predominant problem we are actually dealing with.  I don't think it
makes sense to promise something that one does not aim to keep, or that
one knows by experience that one will not be able to keep in spite of
trying.  A blind person cannot sensibly promise they'll stop overturning
chairs.

I have no problem with getting told "this is not ok".  By anyone.  And
the less delay there is, the sooner I can try getting the overturned
chairs up again.  Routing things through a committee is not making this
easier.  Having a code that allows people to deduce that it is my
behavior that is out of line and tell me so, pointing out just where
that is the case, might help.  But the promise of penalties is something
that will achieve nothing but frustrating both the offended parties as
well as myself until either leaves.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]