On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Gábor Boskovits wrote: > 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.
To be honest, neither does the CC really. It throws out a vague list, but never goes into any detail. I believe this is intentional, if you never define what the goalposts are, then you can move them around as much as you want and apply punishment as you see fit. The same goes for due process, it does not define how to apply punishment, just that the punishment can range from a warning to getting completely banned. Also the accused has no right to defense, the accusation does not need to be disclosed and if any maintainer disagrees they can be removed from the project as well. This is just a kangaroo court system. > I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, > but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. I am not totally opposed to it, but it's like writing your own license: other people have already put thought into it, so just use what they have written. The GKCG has the added bonus that it is an official GNU guideline, so it would be nice to have it throughout the GNU projects. The Debian CoC seems fine, and KDE has a decent one as well. https://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/ > Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? Improve in regards to what exactly? Are the maintainers afraid that the mailing list will turn into 4chan if there is no CoC in place?