On 28/10/2018 13.33, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless.
ACK
2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it
discourages contributions.
That's a somewhat limited and tame take on it ;)
You may count me as having contributed (little as it was) despite of the
CC, definitively not because of it.
The association with the primary author makes some people think of the
... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of
2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short
here, thus far from exact).
While one may say that the CC can and should be seen on its own, this
background does turn it into ... unwelcoming language to some.
I take it for some it reads like an invitation to those with little to
nothing better to do, to report perceived or even made-up misbehavior.
It has run-on sentences and ridiculous lists. Compare, and I can't even
bring myself to quote from the start of the sentence in the far distance:
"... regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender
identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic
status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual
identity and orientation."
With Debian's:
"No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
interact constructively with our community."
How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from
sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies ...
and biology? Disability is listed, not (level of) ability. Body size
couldn't be be subsumed by (personal (what other kind could it be?))
appearance?
Trying so hard to be political correct, but than using the loaded term
"race".
This one is too "funny":
"The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard
to the reporter of an incident."
So if Jim reports that Jane threatened him to foobar his baz, then the
project team has to contact Jane, but must keep it secret that Jim
reported the issue? While being fair to Jane? Maybe such threats are
illegal in the countries of both, maybe it's actually one country and
police and the judicature might get involved?
If the reporter is a 3rd party, sure, but even then an accused person
may express anger towards the potential victim, via assuming that the
potential victim reported personally.
Now there may be cases where protecting a reporter is important and
just, but this "protecting any accuser, always" stance seems problematic.
3. GKCG seems to be inadequate in the opinion of the maintainers, as:
a. it does not define acceptable behaviour, and
b. it does not define processes.
My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill.
I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG,
but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined.
Do you think this can/should be done?
Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall?
Yes and yes, though I'm not sure how much of a GKCG-alike it should
become, as I think it's important to have something short that people
can read and agree with (or not).
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
