On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to > speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and > that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable > distrust of devrel, which historically made it hard for them to > enforce it. My belief is that "developer buy-in" would make all of > the difference in how effective a code of conduct would be. I think "developer buy-in" is absolutely _critical_ for this to work. Without it, the exercise will create more unnecessary ante between devrel and the rest of devs, and it'll be much less successful, even largely a waste of time. For the record, 3 calendar days for comment is a ridiculously small amount of time to achieve this. You could put something in place rapidly, if you want to be seen to be responding to the negative press in various quarters, but it must be on the explicit understanding that the CoC will be developed properly over a longer period of time. Short timescale notwithstanding, here are my comments on the document as a whole. I don't have time to be soft and fluffy over this, so forgive me if it comes across too strong. I agree firmly with Grant, that the doc should be positive in its wording throughout. I sent a critique of the old etiquette guide to devrel last week making exactly this point, however the new CoC still weighs in first with negatives and punishments. This is what happens when the document is drafted rapidly in response to, for want of a better phrase, a crisis in communications. The emphasis should on the positive and on empowerment, not on restriction and subjugation. For example, I'd start the document with something like (written previously as a suggestion for the etiquette guide): Developers are representatives of Gentoo; your behaviour as a developer reflects on Gentoo as a whole. These simple etiquette guidelines are here to help you to ensure your own behaviour is a positive asset to the Gentoo project. and I'd have statements like: Keep all your communications polite and focused on the technical discussion at hand. If a respondent is rude, obnoxious, offensive or annoys you in any way, choose to walk away rather than waste your time responding to it. As far as punishments are concerned, I wouldn't focus on specifics, but on the general aim: The elected proctors have overall responsibility for ensuring good standards of behaviour in all Gentoo fora (mailing lists, IRC, forums etc). They are tasked with taking appropriate action should problems arise. (could equally be 'proctors appointed by the elected council') Well, that's about all I can manage for now - don't expect a full critique in such a short timescale... -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
