Alex thanks for bringing up this idea (again like Joan already followed this approach).
I see problems on both sides. * reading a long text is exhausting - especially for non native speaking people. So the danger that one will not read it is high. * bylaws packed in a short text is dangerous because, why should one write a long text, when one can write it also in a short text? So what is the bigger problem? Assuming a person is not following the bylaws / CoC (it's mixed in the thread above) and we have to "judge" her, we can say "well, it is written in the bylaws / CoC. If you don't read them, it's your problem. Please follow them." Assuming a person is reading the short version and is not following the bylaws / CoC and we have to "judge" her, he could say "hey I understood it this way. If that's not correct, you should explain it better". Imho the bylaws are good as they are. But I can imagine, that we "could maybe" provide a not official shorter version with a very clear explanation, that is just a summary and we never rely on the short version but the long "official" one. Maybe the word "version" is not correct but it should read "content summary". I believe this would be very much work to make it really good. I personally want to stay with the bylaws as they are and would be -0 on a "summary version". Cheers Andy On 5 June 2014 08:19, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > Oh! One good essay about why "Don't do bad things" isn't enough: > > http://satifice.com/octofice/2014/01/01/on-the-dont-do-bad-things-maxim/ > > -Joan > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 2:17:35 AM > Subject: Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project > bylaws) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alexander Shorin" <kxe...@gmail.com> > > > Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be > polite.": > > Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from > people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread > as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.) > > Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming > community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't > be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some > people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage > people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that > I won't bring to bear on this list. > > This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still > harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness. > > > P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page. > > See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer > conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places -- > and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding. > > I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it > will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a > position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think > polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties > CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be > explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list > proves insufficient we need to grow it over time. > > -Joan > -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! http://www.couchdb-buch.de http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
