Hi Jeff, > I'm not sure it was suggested to solve a particular social problem in the > community (because while we have some behavioural problems, they're not at > all crippling the project in any way) but in a somewhat metatastic fashion, > it was suggested to solve the problem that we don't have a CoC. :-) This of > course depends on whether you see inherent value in documenting our shared > values - I do, and I think Murray does.
[Acting as a historian, not actually espousing an opinion] At some point, Murray proposed the CoC as "a means of doing something so that it doesn't look like we're doing nothing" with regard to GNOME's relative dearth of female involvement. Since the ML archives got hosed, I can't provide a link to my post or Murray's reply thereto. But he mentions it in this post and other preserved posts: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-May/msg00060.html [Now espousing an opinion] >From where I sat, it sure looked like GNOME's female underrepresentation was a catalyst for writing the CoC, and was argued as such throughout the thread by its proposer. Why did we need a CoC now, since we haven't had a formal one for, what, 9 years? Clearly, some issue other than "we lack a CoC" was the motivation behind proposing the CoC. Still, I think that the CoC is a good idea. I just don't think that it's even remotely useful to refer to it as a solution to GNOME's female underrepresentation without even anectdotal evidence to back up that claim. It only muddies the issue. "Be excellent to one another" is good enough to stand on its own. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
