I am not exactly a -1 for the code of conduct, but at some point between -1 and 0.
And of course, i wouldn't quit working on Sage and/or commenting here regardless of the final decision about the code of conduct. My experience in the Sage community has been very positive so far. Discussions have been productive and respectful except for a few isolated cases. I feel good in this community, i have found very nice and interesting people here. And, very importantly, Sage now includes some features that are important for my work because i implemented them. I don't think that a change of conduct would change any of the above. And even if it does, i would still have powerful reasons to keep contributing to the Sage development. El viernes, 21 de noviembre de 2014 03:06:53 UTC+1, William escribió: > > Can somebody help me count the votes? I made pass through this long > and complicated thread, and here's what I seem to have got: > > FOR a code of conduct, possibly suitably word-smithed (7): > > Jan Groenewald > Travis Scrimshaw > Anne Schilling > Mike Zabrocki > Andrew Mathas > Ben Salisbury > Viviane Pons > > AGAINST having code of conductor (5) > > Robert Dodier > Simon King > mmarco > Nathann Cohen > Harald Schilley (qualified) > > Other proposal or comments, but didn't vote and proposal gained no > significant traction (5): > > william stein > karl dieter > John Perry > rjf > cremona > > Also, important question. Is there anybody who is *seriously* > considering quitting working on Sage if they don't like the way this > vote goes? If you don't want to respond on list, feel free to email > me offlist at wst...@uw.edu <javascript:>. > > Thanks, > > -- William > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Robert Dodier <robert...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On 2014-11-19, Tom Boothby <tomas....@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > >> In situations where it looks like real abuse has occurred, a committee > >> of arbiters should exist to rule on it. > > > > Instituting a committee of authorities seems misdirected -- unless one > > takes an inclusive approach and declares that all participants are > > hereby authorities. That is, that all participants are equally > > empowered to complain about bad behavior -- anyone can say to anyone, > > "cut that shit out", perhaps worded more tactfully, but the same > > in content at least. > > > > About the fabled rudeness of the inhabitants of NYC, I speculate that > > it's misunderstood by outsiders. What is actually going on is that all > > citizens feel empowered to complain when anyone breaks a rule. Instead > > of suffering in silence as someone cuts in line or stands in a doorway, > > someone just goes ahead and says, "hey, stop it". I'm told (never spent > > much time there myself) that it makes people more polite, because one > > knows that one cannot get away with petty misbehavior. I'd like to > > think the same applies to any informal gathering of humanity. > > > > best, > > > > Robert Dodier > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage-devel" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
