On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out > of GNOME, or gets you shunned. A Terms of Service for hosted sites > which gets your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if > it is very narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc. However > as we move into the realm of who offended who it gets dicey and > predicated on the sentiments of who is making the final call. We've > survived the oGalaxys and Bowie Poags of the past and I don't think I > have seen any worse conduct. I'm defering to the board if they really > feel they need an enshrined document but there should be a vote on the > final draft if we go in this direction.
I (fully) agree with John here. The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally. It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added. > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot <pl...@ploum.net> > wrote: > > I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated. > > How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy > will we > spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer > is A. > > How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that > might fit > every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case? > Answer is B. > > I expect A << B by at least one order of magnitude. > > What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are > offended by > the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but > it's a > problem. A rare one but still a problem. > What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on > that > particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect. > > There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo. > This was > never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by > case basis. > Anyway, there are always people offended by everything. > > > When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start > developing a > framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has > already been > done, it's called J2EE) > > Cheers, > > Lionel > > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters > <stormy.pet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman > <m...@banu.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> I think this is taking it too far. The "Code of Conduct" > being > >> presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise > to make it > >> policy. The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I > can and > >> cannot say/do in public. > >> > > > > We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME, > > > blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we > host and > > I think we can (and > > do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For > example, if > someone > > started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them. > > > > (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most > public > places > > there are laws you have to follow.) > > > > Stormy > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list