Hi Steve, On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:26:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: [...] > Responsibilities include > ======================== > > * Interpreting the Code of Conduct;
I have to say that it was never my intention that there be one team that would have the power to "interpret" the Code of Conduct. It was carefully written to empower administrators of various systems in the project (i.e., IRC, mailinglists, salsa, etc) to "temporarily or permanently" ban people who use our systems in abusive ways, but with the caveat that the reasons for which that clause could be invoked are vague *on purpose*. The Code of Conduct tries to encourage good behavior, rather than discourage bad behavior, which makes for an easier way to detect that someone is breaking the rules set out in that document. There is a whole spectrum of different behaviors between what would be considered "good" and what would be considered "bad"; when someone does something that is "almost bad", then it is very obviously also "not good", so technically violating our Code of Conduct. With a Code of Conduct that enumerates bad behavior instead, we would (technically) have no reason to ban someone who is in the "almost bad" location for Code of Conduct violations. While I'm not arguing that we should take punitive action against everyone who violates our current Code of Conduct in the "almost bad" sense, there is a reason why it mentions "repeat offenders"; additionally, I also think that the current phrasing of the Code of Conduct allows administrators the necessary leeway to take the correct course of action as necessitated by individual situations. If what you mean by "interpreting" is "eventually come up with a long list of things not to do", then that would definitely be against the spirit of the current Code of Conduct (at least as it was intended by its primary author, i.e., me), and I would be disappointed if that were to happen. [...] > Examples of things the team does *not* do > ========================================= [...] > * Mediate communications or conversations between individuals; or I also wonder why you exclude this as a responsibility. I think that a team which does explicitly not have the power to take any punitive action (but at the same time is involved in a lot of situations like that) would often (though probably not always) be in an ideal position to mediate between members. What am I missing? -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard