On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> wrote:
> On 12/12/2018 23:08, Jonathan Moules wrote: > > Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective > > loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules. > > My biggest problem with the Covenant is that it places responsibility > for enforcement on project maintainers who did not realise that they > might have to do this, may not have the skills, resources, or support > required, and may be exposed to legal liability. If we adopt the > Covenant, I think that enforcement should led by OSGeo officers who are > trained, supported, and insured. > Completely agree. This should be a CoC assembled for OSGeo in general. If some event or project want to have their own CoC and team, that's fine, but let's make OSGeo take care of those projects that can't or don't want to take care of this. > > The Covenant is not AFAIK a covenant in the legal sense. If we use it, > we can withdraw if it is changed in a way we do not like. It is CC BY so > we can use it as the basis for a customised CoC, which we would then > have to maintain. > Beauty of freedom :) > > Kind regards, > > -- > Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> > Director > Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> > New Zealand > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
