I want to thank everyone who's spending their time trying to solve the raised questions.
One more point I want to mention since we are collecting community feedback. Feel free to call me stupid and skip until the end. I'm pondering about ideas that controvertial CoC is appeared as some regular result of fight for profit, power and expantion between successful open communities and regular companies. And it's not about some specific persons or their characteristics at all. It looks like an attack on open communities and their values. I'm not talking about some conspiracy here, I'm talking that it's probably natural proccess, similar to non-IT historical situations around the world. Since open IT communities right now are successful enough to compete with regular "closed" communities, we are observing injecting some opposite ideas via CoC to "seduce" open communities and destroy them from inside and then outside. Like, yes, of cource we have conflicts! People are not social angels. But we had a much less of them right now comparing to some bad examples of ineffective companies (with similar size of tasks) with fancy rules and smiles imitation. Who said that there's any chances to minimize conflicts more with CoC? Where is professional scientific research that Qt community or Linux or KDE is slowly dying without CoC? I'm afraid that research could probably show the opposite. чт, 25 окт. 2018 г. в 20:48, Alexey Andreyev <yetanotherandre...@gmail.com>: > > Don't define it because you already know what it is. Just explain the > complaint process and create the committee to deal with each complaint on a > case by case basis. > It could make sense, but then we should made a plan how the committee > could work and how many resources could it take. > Should it be the committee from professional developers? How many hours > are they ready to spend for complaints comparing to other tasks? > > чт, 25 окт. 2018 г. в 20:19, Martin Smith <martin.sm...@qt.io>: > >> >There are two ways to resolve this: either >> >1) Do not consider it, or >> >2) Define in excruciating detail, as to remove the "slippery" from the >> slope. >> >> There is a 3rd way: >> 3) Don't define it because you already know what it is. Just explain the >> comp[laint process and create the committee to deal with each complaint on >> a case by case basis. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Development <development-bounces+martin.smith=qt...@qt-project.org> >> on behalf of Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> >> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:12:00 PM >> To: Volker Hilsheimer >> Cc: Qt development mailing list >> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct >> >> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 11:38 AM >> > From: "Volker Hilsheimer" <volker.hilshei...@qt.io> >> > To: "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com>, "Qt development mailing list" < >> development@qt-project.org> >> > Cc: "Mitch Curtis" <mitch.cur...@qt.io> >> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct >> > >> > > On 25 Oct 2018, at 16:43, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: >> > > Next there is a notion of the CoC being applied to profanity. I am >> also against this. This would violate my right to free speech, and it would >> be so vague to be unenforceable. >> > >> > >> > Oh dear. >> > >> > With your "right to free speech" you probably refer to the first >> amendment of the United States Constitution. >> > >> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, >> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to >> petition the Government for a redress of grievances." >> > >> > The Qt Community is not the US Congress (sadly, perhaps) or some >> instituation legimized by the US Congress. We can therefore not “violate >> your right to free speech”. Also, the right to free speech does not imply >> an obligation for any- or everyone to listen to your speech, no matter the >> opinions or density of profanities. >> > >> > A community of people can not only decide not to listen, it can also >> easily restrict your freedom of speech. >> >> Well, you have people of various legal jurisdictions that have differing >> ideas on what they are allowed to say. Even the US constitution does not >> grant the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. However being of such >> a jurisdiction I am accustomed to having responsible speech being >> permitted. You are correct that no one has to listen, but I have the right >> to express it. The concern that I have is if certain measures are enacted, >> I will lose my ability to "speak" because someone was offended. It's a >> slippery slope I'd rather not contend with. There are two ways to resolve >> this: either >> 1) Do not consider it, or >> 2) Define in excruciating detail, as to remove the "slippery" from the >> slope. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> Development@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> Development@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >> >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
