Some more links. Mikeal Rogers pointed me to:
http://nodeirc.info/ Node uses the following CoC for IRC: http://confcodeofconduct.com/ I like this a lot: http://blog.izs.me/post/30036893703/policy-on-trolling On 29 April 2014 22:34, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Coraline Ada Ehmke (via Twitter) pointed me to this: > > https://github.com/bantik/contributor_covenant > > On 29 April 2014 17:54, Nick North <[email protected]> wrote: >> I prefer the flavour of the Django one. The first point is, "Be welcoming, >> friendly and patient" which feels to me to be about going out of your way >> to help people and making a positive effort to be good, and the rest is in >> the same spirit. The Debian one feels a bit less positive: "be wiling to >> explain to others", "try to stay on topic" etc. The Django one also gives >> examples of things you may be doing wrong, which can be helpful. But both >> are good - I certainly wouldn't vote against something that looked like the >> Debian one. >> >> Nick >> >> >> On 29 April 2014 16:36, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps we ought to take the best bits of both and stick it in a wiki >>> page where we can collaboratively edit. There are a few things from my >>> notes that I likely want to add in addition to both. >>> >>> >>> On 29 April 2014 16:58, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Can I ask folks who prefer the Django one to the Debian one specially >>> > why? Is there something in Django's that's not in Debian's? Is there >>> stuff >>> > in the Debian one that people don't like explicitlly? >>> > >>> > For me, I agree the Django one is shorter and better formatted, but it >>> > seemed to cover less ground than the Debian one. >>> > >>> > -Joan >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Nick North" <[email protected]> >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:30:48 AM >>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CouchDB Developer Code of Conduct >>> > >>> > +1 on the CoC idea. I also like the Django example as a starting point. >>> And >>> > definitely +1 on no profanity - plenty of people are offended by it, and >>> > that in itself should be enough to rule it out. It also adds nothing to >>> the >>> > process of communicating ideas to the community. >>> > >>> > Nick >>> > >>> > >>> > On 29 April 2014 13:15, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Mike Rhodes <[email protected] >>> >> >wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > On 29 April 2014 11:18, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Rule: No profanity >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Secondly, this is only a suspicion, but I think profanity (and also >>> >> cocky >>> >> > > faux hatred), is a shibboleth indicating manhood and that we are in >>> a >>> >> > > men-only club. It's like a loud fart or belch, or scratching your >>> >> groin. >>> >> > > Men generally curb that behavior in mixed company. It reminds me of >>> >> bulls >>> >> > > locking horns to impress a mate. Maybe F-bombs and the anger it >>> stands >>> >> > for >>> >> > > are scaring some women away from software. Could be wrong, though. >>> >> > >>> >> > +1 to guidance against profanity, particularly casual. Crassness is >>> >> > unpleasant. >>> >> > >>> >> > -1 to casual sexism that women don't swear, fart or scratch their >>> >> crotches. >>> >> > I know you didn't mean harm, but this trap is too easy to fall into >>> and >>> >> is >>> >> > relevant here. >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> Well anyway I'm glad there's some momentum (if not yet consensus) to >>> this >>> >> idea. Thanks. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Noah Slater >>> https://twitter.com/nslater >>> > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
