Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, and I > support the practice of enforcing those policies through our control > over our infrastructure and communications channels, I strongly oppose > requiring or presuming that all participants "agree" with our policies, > which I take to mean "declaring that they share the same opinions and > goals". > > Some participants may disagree with our policies, and that's okay. > We don't need their agreement to enforce our policies. > > Forcing people to declare their agreement with our policies as a > prerequisite for participation, or worse, _presuming_ that they agree > based on their having sent a patch or posted a message, is needlessly > alienating to those who don't share our views.
Thank you Mark for succinctly pointing out these flaws in our current CoC. I agree that the language is overreaching, and think that these discussions will continue to crop up as long as this wording is included. Our usage of the Contributor Covenant have deterred at least three contributors. I hope it has attracted and retained more than that; in any case I think we can do better. Also thanks to Thorsten for filing <https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/624>. Getting this fixed upstream will benefit much more than the Guix project.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature