Hello Michael, Le Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:59:07 +0000, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@novell.com> a écrit :
> Hi Charles, > > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:08 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Last call: are we good on this? > > Sigh; I only just got to reading the final draft, busy day > yesterday. Overall it seems to be excellent, I have a few > un-addressed concerns: > > Members are expected to refrain from any kind of expression of > racism, xenophobia, sexism and religious or political > intolerance. > > This sounds like a vow of chastity :-) It appears to apply to > the whole of life, and not just to engagement with TDF etc. As such > is is somewhat offensive, and in itself an oxymoron: "I can't > tolerate your intolerance" ;-). Many communities have people with > strong, colorful and opposing views expressed in strong terms. This > to me is a sign of health and diversity - instead of some bland > pea-soup of non-expression :-) > > I'd like to excise that; though clearly we need some minimal > good behaviour policy I don't believe it belongs here. I rather prefer > relying on the much more helpful text in the "Revocation of > membership" section, that talks about ad-hominem, attacks, abuse, > insulting, etc. - sounds like a much more sensible line that is > supportable :-) > > Every membership applicant must have been active for at least > three (3) months, and should make a moral commitment to at > least six (6) months activity (not counting the first three (3) months > of fulfillment of qualification). > > Again - this moral commitment to future work is a problem for > people that take their commitments seriously. I can't commit to work > on LibreOffice for six months: anything could happen - I might be > incapacitated, die suddenly, loose my mind (arguably this has already > happened) :-) IMHO the "future commitment" is sufficiently built on an > (already over-long) three month history with the project - I would > like to see that removed. > > Continuity of membership section. > > This is much improved, I like the renewal process, makes a > lot of sense. > > Anyhow - otherwise, I am completely behind this, it seems > rather polished now, and the checks and balances seem more than > adequate. > > With the removal of one paragraph, and the end of that 'moral > commitment' sentence I'm 100% behind this. So I didn't write the first paragraph, and I believe it is of no consequence at all; as for the moral commitment I'm the one who added the term "moral". It might have been me using a french expression more than anything. By adding "moral" I was emphasizing that it wasn't "legal", meaning: you can commit "in spirit", but it's not a fundamental problem affecting your membership if you don't. Remember that non-members can contribute patches, submit bug reports, etc. If you want to become a member it's gotta be for a reason :-) Is this something that clarifies the sentence ? best, Charles. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
