> I think we have two camps: > We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I think everyone is > committed to this) > AND > 1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR > 2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or more
Hello, Jason! What do you say about Archlinux CoC? [1] For me it's probably an option to explicitly say at new CoC that "witch hunt" questions from your terminology is not a task for a technical project itself. See part 2.3.3 among others. [1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 17:11, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com>: > Lydia, > > First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for > your effort in it. > > But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates > exactly what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this thread > sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I fear I'm not > the only one."? Would you say the project has created fear in you and this > has somehow "harmed" the project in some way? Who were these people that > changed your mind? We need to identify these people and ban them because > they are not casting the widest inclusive and protective audience and > anything less than that is harm... Let the witch hunt begin... right? > > Everyone, > This is the slippery slope that I'm talking about accusations start in > wide-abstractions like your statement and devolve into direct accusations. > While no one yet here has the motivation to conduct a witch hunt, we cannot > assume that will be the case. So far common sense has prevailed, but common > sense is, well, uncommon. It may be that Cone day oraline et. al. go on a > witch hunt for those the opposed her Covenant. > > I've spent some time thinking about this this weekend. Here's what I don't > get. Coraline authored the CC. She then goes into projects attacking them > with it, but fortunately(?) it hasn't worked. But to put it a different > way, if I design an instrument, publish the plans, and try to use it in a > community, if it doesn't work, is it the instrument or the user that is at > fault? If that instrument is intended to be destructive (say like a bomb), > then can we see how she really means for this to be used? To my knowledge > none of the people singled out in the witch hunts actually did anything > offensive in the projects they were participating in. > > It could be that eventually those who opposed the CoC in some way get > labeled as "intolerant" by the larger community. Lydia's statement has > already given me pause in this regard and I'm not being hyperbolic. > Political views, and things we don't consider as political today, can > eventually become political. > > I think we have two camps: > We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I think > everyone is committed to this) > AND > 1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR > 2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or > more > > I've always assumed that there was some line that could be crossed that > would get your accounts shut down and removed from the community. If > someone makes it so that the community cannot function, in whole or in > part, then removal is warranted. These Codes of Conducts lower the barrier > to an incredibly low bar and don't say what lower threshold of "harm" is > needed to run afoul. I haven't even had a response as to if it is perceived > or demonstrable harm that is required. > > So far cooler heads and common sense have prevailed, but I don't trust > that will always be the case. This is why if we go with a CoC that can > prescribe punishments, that it be explicit both in determination and > punishment stages. > > > *Not that I have anything against witches. I have several wiccan friends. > Is the term "witch hunt" offensive? Can I get banned for using that term > now or in the future? > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM > > From: "Lydia Pintscher" <ly...@kde.org> > > To: development@qt-project.org > > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira > > <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of > times > > > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much > time it > > > took them to give it the attention it was due. > > > > I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always > > deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good > > knowledge of the situation and people involved. No big deal. > > > > (For those who don't know me: I'm one of the people who wrote KDE's > > CoC and has been a member of it's community working group since then. > > I'm also the current president of the non-profit behind KDE.) > > If you have further questions about KDE's Code of Conduct please let > > me know. I'm happy to answer them. > > > > > > Cheers > > Lydia > > > > PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this > > thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I > > fear I'm not the only one. > > > > -- > > Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher > > KDE e.V. Board of Directors > > http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org > > _______________________________________________ > > 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