On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi,
*snip* > > - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there are > > missing the mail/list specific parts. > > Hm. The whole point of this exercise was to replace that code of conduct with > a more generic and up-to-date one, so if you feel that this isn't good > enough, > then that's a bug. > > Can you be more specific about the bits that you think should not be removed > from the current mailinglist coc? Your goals are honorable, but I am not sure if this possible. Let me see: I have some example that I don't want to lose, but most are for example not suitable for IRC: - Do not send spam; see the advertising policy below. (the advertising policy is the interesting part) - Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing lists where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on debian-user-french). - Make sure that you are using the proper list. In particular, don't send user-related questions to developer-related mailing lists. - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output (e.g., ls -l). - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages. - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is working. - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list address itself; use the respective -request address instead. - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead. - Avoid sending large attachments. - Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand. - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. - If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when you did not ask for it, do it privately. - If you send messages to lists to which you are not subscribed, always note that fact in the body of your message. This are a lot of points, and most of them don't fit to other mediums. > > I am also not that happy with having > > several documents with the name 'Code of Conduct', maybe we can find a > > solution somehow. > > Yes, that would seem to be obvious; I don't think we need several codes of > conduct. I think that there are always medium specific rules that don't apply to other medium. One classic point specific to IRC would be not to use an CTCP VERSION to all clients. *snip* > > Are _all_ other administrators of > > 'Debian communication forums' aware of that change? If we go that way, we > > should probably move away from announcing them on -private and move to > > something else. Like an mbox on master, or something else (and in my eyes > > - non-public). > > I don't think it's necessary to move that. > > While the code of conduct says that bans should be made public to Debian > Developers, it does not say how, where, in what manner, or even if bans > should > be made public _only_ to Debian Developers (although we might be somewhat > more > explicit about that). This is intentional; I think review of bans is a good > thing, and I do think we should have it, but I don't want a document like > this > to impose any workflow on anyone. > > As such, personally I don't expect this to result in a major increase (other > than has already happened) of such announcements to -private. OK Alex
pgpb3zqlJ52jx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
