Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 06:31:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: While it's probably too late in this process to change what we're going to vote on, I just ran across this today, and it may be of general interest in the context of codes of conduct. http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ So, I've read that, and I'm pretty much in disagreement with what they say. They advocate an approach of enumerating badness, which I don't think is a good idea. The main reason why it seems to do so is because the bad guys will otherwise start arguing with you about semantics. That may be a good way if there are a lot of avenues for the banned people to appeal their ban, but AIUI that just isn't the case in Debian. Someone who's banned from our mailinglists can complain to listmasters that the ban wasn't fair (and explain their case), or maybe appeal to the DPL if that didn't help, but that's about it. There is no hearing or anything of the sort, and since most bans are just for a few weeks anyway. More than that really isn't necessary IMO. As others have said, posting on our mailinglists is a privilege, not a right. If you abuse that privilege, we have the right to ban you from it, and there's no reason we should give abusers a lot of consideration. We should not ban for years on end by default, but then we're not doing that. As I'm sure you'll know, the downside of enumerating badness is that the enumeration will never be complete. Therefore, the suggested code of conduct deliberately tries to explain what you should do (in a positive sense), and is somewhat vague in what you shouldn't do, so as to leave room for reasonable interpretation. I think that's a far better approach than what's advocated in the above link. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
While it's probably too late in this process to change what we're going to vote on, I just ran across this today, and it may be of general interest in the context of codes of conduct. http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87lhw5psf2@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: * Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]: So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify paragraph 3 read as follows, instead: --- 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. --- The idea here is that a DPL can add a link to something considered useful, while normal DD's can still add such a link through a GR if the DPL is opposed. How's that sound? Just a minor point, I think we should put the or the DPL's delegates in () because according to the constitution the DPL could delegate these powers anyways (and so this part is just repeating what our constitution says, and not something special for this decision here). Yes, that sounds slightly better. So, basically, we have now: - My original proposal, which has received enough seconds, - Neil's amendment A, which adds the current mailinglist CoC to the further reading section. I have accepted that amendment in 20140308012109.ga...@grep.be, and no sponsors have objected, so under A.1.5 of the constitution my original proposal is replaced by Neil's amendment A. - Neil's amendment B, which I have not accepted (and which I will not accept either) and which has received enough seconds. However, I have suggested some minor adjustments, and Neil seems to have accepted them (though not formally so). If Neil were to formally accept my amendment to his amendment to my GR proposal (or possibly, Andreas' amendment to my amendment to Neil's amendment to my GR proposal -- still with me? ;-), that would end us up with two options on the ballot rather than three (not counting FD), which I think would be a plus. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: * Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]: So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify paragraph 3 read as follows, instead: --- 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. --- The idea here is that a DPL can add a link to something considered useful, while normal DD's can still add such a link through a GR if the DPL is opposed. How's that sound? Just a minor point, I think we should put the or the DPL's delegates in () because according to the constitution the DPL could delegate these powers anyways (and so this part is just repeating what our constitution says, and not something special for this decision here). Yes, that sounds slightly better. So, basically, we have now: - My original proposal, which has received enough seconds, - Neil's amendment A, which adds the current mailinglist CoC to the further reading section. I have accepted that amendment in 20140308012109.ga...@grep.be, and no sponsors have objected, so under A.1.5 of the constitution my original proposal is replaced by Neil's amendment A. - Neil's amendment B, which I have not accepted (and which I will not accept either) and which has received enough seconds. However, I have suggested some minor adjustments, and Neil seems to have accepted them (though not formally so). Formally accepted :) If Neil were to formally accept my amendment to his amendment to my GR proposal (or possibly, Andreas' amendment to my amendment to Neil's amendment to my GR proposal -- still with me? ;-), that would end us up with two options on the ballot rather than three (not counting FD), which I think would be a plus. Sounds good to me. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:34:31PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: * Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]: So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify paragraph 3 read as follows, instead: --- 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. --- The idea here is that a DPL can add a link to something considered useful, while normal DD's can still add such a link through a GR if the DPL is opposed. How's that sound? Just a minor point, I think we should put the or the DPL's delegates in () because according to the constitution the DPL could delegate these powers anyways (and so this part is just repeating what our constitution says, and not something special for this decision here). Yes, that sounds slightly better. So, basically, we have now: - My original proposal, which has received enough seconds, - Neil's amendment A, which adds the current mailinglist CoC to the further reading section. I have accepted that amendment in 20140308012109.ga...@grep.be, and no sponsors have objected, so under A.1.5 of the constitution my original proposal is replaced by Neil's amendment A. - Neil's amendment B, which I have not accepted (and which I will not accept either) and which has received enough seconds. However, I have suggested some minor adjustments, and Neil seems to have accepted them (though not formally so). Formally accepted :) So I inserted that after 2, and it now reads: ol liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. liThe initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct liUpdates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL (or the DPL's delegates) can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. liThe initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. /ol Can you confirm that that was your intention? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140310175451.ga24...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:54:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:34:31PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Formally accepted :) So I inserted that after 2, and it now reads: ol liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. liThe initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct liUpdates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL (or the DPL's delegates) can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. liThe initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. /ol Can you confirm that that was your intention? Not what I meant, but I'll grant you there's some room for confusion here. I have accepted Neil's original proposal to drop the second item in the above, and make it an extra entry in the further reading section. Under A.1.2, that means my original proposal and Neil's amendment A should now be considered one and the same thing, both using Neil's text (unless any of the seconders of my original proposal were to object, which so far nobody has done and which would surprise me, given the seconders of the original proposal and of Neil's first amendment are largely the same people) I interpret all that as meaning Neil's second amendment must now be based upon his first amendment (which, indeed, his proposal as sent was not). It would therefore read: ol liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. liUpdates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL (or the DPL's delegates) can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. liThe initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. /ol i.e., dropping item 2 (and adding the text of his amendment A to the further reading section). A strict reading of Neil's original text would indeed imply the above is wrong, but I would be surprised if that were his intention, given that he proposed that change in the first place... -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: The first one is now: ol liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. liUpdates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. liThe initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. /ol It adds the following text at the end of the initial text: pre - The [Mailing list code of conduct](http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct) is useful for advice specific to Debian mailing lists /pre === And I understand that your understanding is that the second one should be: === ol liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. liUpdates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL (or the DPL's delegates) can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. liThe initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. /ol It adds the following text at the end of the initial text: pre - The [Mailing list code of conduct](http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct) is useful for advice specific to Debian mailing lists /pre === In which case I should just add the link to the mailling list CoC initial text since all options now have that. Yes, that's what I think should be done. Neil, can you confirm? -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140310211907.gb7...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: ol liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. liUpdates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL (or the DPL's delegates) can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. liThe initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. /ol Yes, that's what I think should be done. Neil, can you confirm? Yup, confirmed. Kurt: For avoidance of doubt, please update Amendment A to read as quoted above. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]: So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify paragraph 3 read as follows, instead: --- 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. --- The idea here is that a DPL can add a link to something considered useful, while normal DD's can still add such a link through a GR if the DPL is opposed. How's that sound? Just a minor point, I think we should put the or the DPL's delegates in () because according to the constitution the DPL could delegate these powers anyways (and so this part is just repeating what our constitution says, and not something special for this decision here). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140309231233.gy16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi Wouter, On 8 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading After some consideration, I accept this amendment. Thank you very much :) Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify paragraph 3 read as follows, instead: --- 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. --- The idea here is that a DPL can add a link to something considered useful, while normal DD's can still add such a link through a GR if the DPL is opposed. How's that sound? That sounds very sensible to me, I’d be happy to accept it. I’m not sure what formal process Kurt would like me to follow to get these incorporated - Kurt? Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/597df157-8055-4a2d-aff4-9e83f9e81...@halon.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in another mail. And here's those amendments. […] Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. […] While I have sympathy with this argument, requiring a full GR to change the content of the CoC feels a little bit heavyweight to me. How about something like this? --- Replace 3. in the original GR proposal with: 3. Updates to this code of conduct can be made by the unanimous consent of at least K* developers or, failing that, if at least K* developers in favour outweigh those developers opposed with a 3:1 majority. Amendments shall be proposed for discussion on a publicly-readable mailing list designated by the Project Secretary. There is a combined minimum discussion and seconding period of two weeks folowing the proposal of an amendment, after which the amendment is withdrawn if it has not received sufficient support. Updates may also be made by the Debian Developers as a whole using the standard General Resolution procedure. --- * I would be open to changing this. Thanks, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I understand this argument, but the DPL is not a random single person in Debian, he/she is someone elected by project members. I therefore don't buy that allowing the DPL to change the CoC will diminish in any way the communicative strength of the CoC. Also consider that if a DPL (or delegates) try to change the CoC in a way which is not to the liking of many in the project, we do have the ability to override that decision. And that's not theoretical: it has happened in the past. I don't think we lack the needed check and balances here. So, even if this second amendment is accepted by Wouter, I'd rather vote on two options: one where the DPL might change the CoC, and a separate one which requires a GR. Assuming I'm not alone on this --- public feedback welcome --- it might be simpler if Wouter simply does not accept Neil's second amendment. (FWIW I've no particular opinion on the first one.) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:23:48 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: So, even if this second amendment is accepted by Wouter, I'd rather vote on two options: one where the DPL might change the CoC, and a separate one which requires a GR. Assuming I'm not alone on this --- public feedback welcome --- it might be simpler if Wouter simply does not accept Neil's second amendment. Feedback, as requested: I agree. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Tom Waits: What's He Building? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, March 7, 2014 11:23, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I understand this argument, but the DPL is not a random single person in Debian, he/she is someone elected by project members. I therefore don't buy that allowing the DPL to change the CoC will diminish in any way the communicative strength of the CoC. I do not see the code of conduct to be very different from the diversity statement with respect to the requirements for changing it. The decision on that statement did not contain any clauses authorising the DPL to make updates to it. I do not expect there will be a need for frequent updates or changes to the core meaning of the text. I also do not see any problem with a significant changes requiring a GR. Deciding on changes to shared norms like these seems like the thing GR's are definitely fit for. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/7cfdd3c20c5f4ed961903d46b12c8350.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Thijs Kinkhorst: I do not see the code of conduct to be very different from the diversity statement with respect to the requirements for changing it. The decision on that statement did not contain any clauses authorising the DPL to make updates to it. A CoC which doesn't prescribe every single letter one might type invariably contains loopholes, which we might have to plug in a reasonably timely manner. I therefore suggest the following amendment: The DPL may offer changes to this document by mailing to debian-announce. Changes are deemed to be approved after four weeks if they are not retracted and no GR is called on them or a related modification. Thus, uncontroversial changes get applied in a timely manner and without buerocratic overhead, while anything else will get the full GR treatment. Seconds? -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Cyril Brulebois writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be (2014-03-06): As far as I can tell the problem is that you're not using MIME and the same problem people have when voting using non-ASCII characters. Conveniently published not so long ago: http://debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/108 https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/notes/inline-pgp-harmful/ I keep my key on a different machine to my mailreader. I'm not aware of any reasonable tools for supporting this kind of use. (NB I don't consider use the trusted machine as a signing oracle a good approach. I want to know what it is I'm signing.) Suggestions welcome. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21273.48756.200852.72...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I understand this argument, but the DPL is not a random single person in Debian, he/she is someone elected by project members. I therefore don't buy that allowing the DPL to change the CoC will diminish in any way the communicative strength of the CoC. I know, but I didn't use the word random :) I think I disagree though that the weight of the CoC is unaffected by the ability of one person to change it - the project as a whole has chosen to endorse (or not, depending on the outcome of the vote) the CoC, rather than endorsing its current state, and allowing the DPL to change it. Similarly to a foundation document, or the diversity statement, it's a position of the project. Also consider that if a DPL (or delegates) try to change the CoC in a way which is not to the liking of many in the project, we do have the ability to override that decision. And that's not theoretical: it has happened in the past. I don't think we lack the needed check and balances here. Indeed, it's not a checks-and-balance thing for me. It's about making a fundimental statement. I believe that the current document is non-specific enough that there shoudn't be a requirement to change it easily, and indeed that would potentially open up the DPL to various accusations of bias for unilaterally changing something. I'm also wary of the difference between a) having a GR to add something and b) explicitly overruling the DPL. So, even if this second amendment is accepted by Wouter, I'd rather vote on two options: one where the DPL might change the CoC, and a separate one which requires a GR. Assuming I'm not alone on this --- public feedback welcome --- it might be simpler if Wouter simply does not accept Neil's second amendment. Indeed, I would also prefer it if it was on the ballot separately! I think it's a point that should be put before the developers as I'm aware that my personal view on this may or may not be shared by the developers in general! Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Neil McGovern wrote: Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole I also second Wouter's proposal and Neil's amendments. - -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTGc8CAAoJELvBfrsTlvL3aT8QAKa+ov+YWPf+lxTYMPvjbifP tNxmlp2+OwSpTJkqQ8dRPE9YZl/+HhjmmGIIBh+sfNWwBaynPg0rH7IUsYXI3MR5 7jE4ntlk5wK077waPs4uPTsbjezeboMZLBRcw22yORaamNQ84b6RGQFDh0GfUZzQ iYg8V0m4YSlH4H+gkZGL/VNXJv/Nmkej2EzJJpaw/tq2jgVBaa+q3zCj+yVsZ45R DfMwvDtz3r74JkBDqAQXGlXWMD1OAH+UaupgK4ReqKrbSCYpqwmkfTvJ43k2Kstk Pxds16bSlwKATZ8eWixWTzyIALbDlAtfYUv4inRo9uRverR2uy/muWtQ5ygUKNi+ Ol6oOdMtkeJEJYt8G7XM2E3YhihlbPeXY4WNK8zoVgFqzuhilLWXE/tbZIwbsHen PInV1wX8b4wH4WmRtR/1Z3xNhNMBRSAuFplG/58i3T41Itp2LrMXys8mzs04NnLA x+JPGNUXhVnKybYxjuRfJgj5xMQhXamoL1P2Dru0Yhq//LtiL6kFiStx5cbNeKKA 9C+A0MojTs66tWn/fPMEoRMpVBwMcYD3llqR7s3WKVwYEnakaIzaDU2DzI43AC6J dg/iTTj3PtrQKqiDIJjd3HSaxSIV9EXxTLROpcFY10SnLniBKTkofo40fLfG4j4s NCqWzfuPfmEGpH1DqgUy =+hEX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lfciu6$eiu$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307173343.ga5...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. lfciu6$eiu$1...@ger.gmane.org has some seconds in too. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: == 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. So I've been wondering under which part of the constituion I should be putting all the options. Are they position statements? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307173741.gb5...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:41:10PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. lfciu6$eiu$1...@ger.gmane.org has some seconds in too. That was already commited. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307180401.ga6...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: == 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. So I've been wondering under which part of the constituion I should be putting all the options. Are they position statements? That's what I'd probably classify it as, similar to the diversity statement (ie: 4.1.5). Wouter? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. It seems lines from the initial text with # where missing, wml removed them. I've just commited the fix for that. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307181313.ga7...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
(Dropped -project) Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): Wouter, are you going to accept Neil's amendment, or should I create 2 options? Wouter, please don't accept Neil's second amendment (the one disallowing modification by the DPL). If you do I shall have to propose another amendment to undo it :-). Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21274.3532.144228.101...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:19:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): Wouter, are you going to accept Neil's amendment, or should I create 2 options? Wouter, please don't accept Neil's second amendment (the one disallowing modification by the DPL). If you do I shall have to propose another amendment to undo it :-). Indeed, apologies - perhaps I should have been clearer - I don't think that my second amendment should be accepted either! Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307182526.gj11...@halon.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
I second Wouter's proposal and both of Neil's amendments below. (I haven't counted the current seconds for the amendments. The -vote page indicates there's not enough.) On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in another mail. And here's those amendments. Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC as a general purpose document, rather than have it specific to each medium. The information at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct is still useful as it stands. I'm hopeful Wouter will accept this one, as I don't think it substantially changes the CoC. - participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. -2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist - code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct - -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the +2. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct [snip] - Debian has a [diversity statement](http://www.debian.org/intro/diversity) - The [Debian Community Guidelines](http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/) by Enrico Zini contain some advice on how to communicate effectively. +- The [Mailing list code of + conduct](http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct) is useful for + advice specific to Debian mailing lists - Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I'm less convinced Wouter will accept this, but I think it should be on the ballot! - 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the - DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian - Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. - -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct - Thanks! Neil -- -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:55:10PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I second Wouter's proposal and both of Neil's amendments below. (I haven't counted the current seconds for the amendments. The -vote page indicates there's not enough.) This makes the fifth. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307185823.ga8...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in another mail. And here's those amendments. Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC as a general purpose document, rather than have it specific to each medium. The information at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct is still useful as it stands. I'm hopeful Wouter will accept this one, as I don't think it substantially changes the CoC. - participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. -2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist - code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct - -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the +2. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct [snip] - Debian has a [diversity statement](http://www.debian.org/intro/diversity) - The [Debian Community Guidelines](http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/) by Enrico Zini contain some advice on how to communicate effectively. +- The [Mailing list code of + conduct](http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct) is useful for + advice specific to Debian mailing lists - After some consideration, I accept this amendment. The original goal of my proposed CoC was to replace the original the mailinglist code of conduct, as I considered it of somewhat limited use. To keep it and point to it would therefore somewhat defeat my original purpose. However, it is now clear that listmasters disagree; and as there are reasonable arguments for some of the things in the mailinglist coc, even though I think they should probably be in a different kind of document, I accept that my proposed CoC is not a replacement. So it does make sense to keep it, even if that's not what I had planned for. Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I'm less convinced Wouter will accept this, but I think it should be on the ballot! - 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the - DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian - Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. - -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct - The reason for that clause in my proposal was some discussion (not sure anymore whether it was during the BoF or on -project) where most people seemed to be in favour of allowing the DPL to make changes, rather than having to go through what might be a lengthy and tiresome GR procedure; but my original idea was to use a GR, too. In other words, I might not be as opposed to this as you think ;-) Having said that, I do think the further reading section should *not* require a GR to be updated. Useful documents get written all the time, and adding such a link to the document should not be controversial, no matter what. So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify paragraph 3 read as follows, instead: --- 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add or remove links to other documents in the Further reading section after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. --- The idea here is that a DPL can add a link to something considered useful, while normal DD's can still add such a link through a GR if the DPL is opposed. How's that sound? -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: == 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. So I've been wondering under which part of the constituion I should be putting all the options. Are they position statements? More like a nontechnical policy document. But that's also 4.1.5 ;-) -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140308012759.gb...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTGKtoAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05UEIIAL9LjyRbr6O489hzRxqdHHc9 UEjhnnarA1grjqsuFA+yGgn1KMzCg/aUXnpXfb9R34AQpsc074TdOmbej75v9eXp jyp2RnI8/H04YwVUeahKQsyJFHM0KOecV3Kzq+Gb0QIOrNCLdwPPO/8XI9rieEKj /xmw6ORRQFo5gc1aC3h+TMCX+lQd+OM3+OENsHCBz+U/fC9f/DQJrQRANpNufuLf o2Jy5WFJ3I/h63M/y3eLJkaGn29evfPry6elyZkiBWdSavyrv6J+Kf5ACQxhm7uv MTtjJJcZ7BZcjXZfYk+XNGy3kPsVDh1BF2xlIY1HPVf2Fg+rNEEKszr+ftbTeSs= =bBKw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21272.43898.39859.513...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On 05/03/2014 21:41, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:38:02PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: I second Wouter's proposal and I second both these amendments by Neil. I also second Wouter's proposal and amendments by Neil. I also second Wouter's proposal + Neil changes. Sylvestre signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:25:16PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I think that's the 4th second. I believe we've now reached five: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/02/msg7.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00112.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00115.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00116.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00117.html So I missed yours for some reason. I'll get started on the vote page. Wouter, are you going to accept Neil's amendment, or should I create 2 options? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140306184802.ga12...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct):
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct):
This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
I second this proposal.
I actually got a BAD signature on this.
I think it must have been charset-mangled. Wouter's message contained
some utf-8. My signed message has utf-8 in it since my software has
copied the octets verbatim.
Here is a uuencoded copy of the output I got from gnupg.
If you'd like to provide a uuencoded copy of what you got, we can try
to figure out what became of it.
Hmm. Looking at my original message in my MUA it says
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
which is not right. Perhaps your MUA has done a latin-1 to utf-8
encoding, meaning that your copy of the signed file is in a form of
WTF-8. If so then presumably if my message _had_ been in latin-1 with
codepoints above 128, it would have been mishandled in the same way ?
Ian.
begin 664 t.asc
M+2TM+2U14=)3B!01U`@4TE'3D5$($U%4U-!1T4M+2TM+0I(87-H.B!32$$R
M-38*E=O=71EB!697)H96QS=!WFET97,@*)'4B!PF]P;W-A;#H@8V]D
M92!O9B!C;VYD=6-T(BDZCX@5AIR!IR!T;R!PF]P;W-E($@9V5N97)A
M;!R97-O;'5T:6]N('5N95R(,*G-XQ+C4@;V8@=AE(-O;G-T:71U=EO
M;@H^('1O('!R;W!OV4@82!$96)I86X@8V]D92!O9B!C;VYD=6-T+@H*22!S
M96-O;F0@=AIR!PF]P;W-A;X*DEA;BX*+2TM+2U14=)3B!01U`@4TE'
M3D%455)%+2TM+2T*5F5RVEO;CH@1VYU4$@=C$N-XQ,B`H1TY5+TQI;G5X
M*0H*:5%%8T)!14)#04%'0E%*5$=+=]!06]*14]0:D]33DET43`U545)24%,
M.4QJ5)BC9/-#@Y:'I2'%D2$AC.0I516IH;FYAD$Q9W)J7-U1D$K4=G
M;C%+37I#9R]A55AN%AF8CE2,S1!47!S8S`W-%1D3VUB96HW-78Y95APFIY
M#)2;DDX+T@P-%EW5E5E86A+47-Y2D9(33!+3V5C5C-+G$K1V(P44E/DY#
M31W4%!/+SA823ER:65%2VH*+WAM=S9/4E)11F\U9V,Q84,S:M434-8*VQ1
M9M/33,K3T5.TA#0GHK52]F0SEF+T112G)14D%.$YU9G5,9@IO,DIY-5=
M2C-)+V@V,TTO3-E3$IK84=N,CEE=F90GDV96QY6FMI0E=D4V%V7)V-DHK
M2V8U04-1AM-W5VDU4=I*2F-:-T):8VI86F99:RM83D=Y,VM0U9$:#%
M1C)X;$E9,4A05F8R1FKDY%14MSG(K9G1B553ST*/6)2W*+2TM+2U%
63D0@4$=0(%-)1TY!5%5212TM+2TM@``
`
end
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21272.51197.672239.918...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I actually got a BAD signature on this. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140306190310.ga13...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 07:09:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I actually got a BAD signature on this. I think it must have been charset-mangled. Wouter's message contained some utf-8. My signed message has utf-8 in it since my software has copied the octets verbatim. Here is a uuencoded copy of the output I got from gnupg. I can at least very the signature with that, and have to agree it's some kind of mangeling gone wrong somewhere. Hmm. Looking at my original message in my MUA it says Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 which is not right. Perhaps your MUA has done a latin-1 to utf-8 encoding, meaning that your copy of the signed file is in a form of WTF-8. If so then presumably if my message _had_ been in latin-1 with codepoints above 128, it would have been mishandled in the same way ? As far as I can tell the problem is that you're not using MIME and the same problem people have when voting using non-ASCII characters. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140306192616.gb13...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be (2014-03-06): On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 07:09:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Hmm. Looking at my original message in my MUA it says Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 which is not right. Perhaps your MUA has done a latin-1 to utf-8 encoding, meaning that your copy of the signed file is in a form of WTF-8. If so then presumably if my message _had_ been in latin-1 with codepoints above 128, it would have been mishandled in the same way ? As far as I can tell the problem is that you're not using MIME and the same problem people have when voting using non-ASCII characters. Conveniently published not so long ago: http://debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/108 https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/notes/inline-pgp-harmful/ Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/27/2014 04:15 PM, gregor herrmann wrote: On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:42:47 +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote: To me the strength of the CoC draft we are looking at here is that it doesn't concern itself with trivialities or with specific media. It talks about conduct -- that is behaviour, deportment, how we want people interact as human beings -- be respectful, be collaborative, assume good faith, be concise, be open. These are all about social interactions and not technical details on character limits, attachment sizes or whether people get CCs on messages. None of these technical things are conduct, they are, if you like, protocol. The CoC could happily refer to medium-specific guidelines for such minutiae if they are necessary. Wow, thank you. You put my thoughts into way better words than I ever could have done. This also sums up my views on the direction the conversation took. I'd encourage those who feel the same way to answer Wouter's call for seconds. AFAICT, I'm still the only one to have offered a second, and it would be nice to move the process forward. Thanks, - -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething Debian Developer http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTF13gAAoJEDtW4rvVP9yxK8IP/3Apc7kQ+QdTUIWB5LfsSX7H yu2K3t+XRd45Zq4GPprZt13howtfB7sGJSmSs7NJ5hiZtde6ID59dp42uiuyD99g c4M7LMLMK4IJlVgGU0dwrDedVhyz4S3Qkhp7cqjm7eg4l8Fpw6Q8uoiqrXTzkeb/ jB+FgCFMnjZ9BvqMaPi7J+Se6vvmPfXBIs6HDjRA9iQOJCk8Po6ktS51cq5e/jZa Y1Zt2kp9Bv6QDmtN339KSQwaN0thow/T48Bd3Q3n51N0SUI3amtl5Pw1iN/GBBEC R5DoVsvuQQK2O+9oiVnb+iWY4fErSnVuiYmk8E8cOODvQAkPuETsXOUY/sYzkC2j xMG02lFyO5kul6VWjZMZponyaivyz5klE23poy2LB7ulT75B2JDXixD7lO5h0v8b IaUvLS0YysXS+SnZD+1XCxAdBWt02VG21e/cyjDIrULcodWAUZNrpPN3it9BmNR+ +GTP3b/kPbWb+g1ncQgnXq3WpJEEaSDT9VsZ42YSFpnyZ+i734Ju6czo6UIEM/n1 IIhY3mfqie5kLSOSH9RY5jnEGjWg9M2NEfe3VlsqpQvqbj7lb3A4RMbtrCMTcqyL pPPO5+m6g0ueZ55xwaMVgwjg6zoe6OXJR3NOC22wpHaj2lH11cOmNeV9z7L5X+ZC QOPhtuH7CY8O3G6sHDny =sBEr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53175de4@debian.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in another mail. Neil On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct 3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. 4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct ## Be respectful In a project the size of Debian, inevitably there will be people with whom you may disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that, but even so, remain respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour or personal attacks, and a community in which people feel threatened is not a healthy community. ## Assume good faith Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or may have different cultural backgrounds ## Be collaborative Debian is a large and complex project; there is always more to learn within Debian. It's good to ask for help when you need it. Similarly, offers for help should be seen in the context of our shared goal of improving Debian. When you make something for the benefit of the project, be willing to explain to others how it works, so that they can build on your work to make it even better. ## Try to be concise Keep in mind that what you write once will be read by hundreds of persons. Writing a short email means people can understand the conversation as efficiently as possible. When a long explanation is necessary, consider adding a summary. Try to bring new arguments to a conversation so that each mail adds something unique to the thread, keeping in mind that the rest of the thread still contains the other messages with arguments that have already been made. Try to stay on topic, especially in discussions that are already fairly large. ## Be open Most ways of communication used within Debian allow for public and private communication. As per paragraph three of the [social contract](http://www.debian.org/social_contract), you should preferably use public methods of communication for Debian-related messages, unless posting something sensitive. This applies to messages for help or Debian-related support, too; not only is a public support request much more likely to result in an answer to your question, it also makes sure that any inadvertent mistakes made by people answering your question will be more easily detected and corrected. ## In case of problems While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you may reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However, regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, it should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than that they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion. Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see [the page on Debian's organizational structure](http://www.debian.org/intro/organization) # Further reading Some of the links in this section do not refer to documents that are part of this code of conduct, nor are they authoritative within Debian. However, they all do contain useful information on how to conduct oneself on our communication channels. - Debian has a [diversity statement](http://www.debian.org/intro/diversity) - The [Debian Community Guidelines](http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/) by Enrico Zini contain some advice on how to communicate effectively. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in another mail. And here's those amendments. Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC as a general purpose document, rather than have it specific to each medium. The information at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct is still useful as it stands. I'm hopeful Wouter will accept this one, as I don't think it substantially changes the CoC. - participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. -2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist - code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct - -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the +2. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct [snip] - Debian has a [diversity statement](http://www.debian.org/intro/diversity) - The [Debian Community Guidelines](http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/) by Enrico Zini contain some advice on how to communicate effectively. +- The [Mailing list code of + conduct](http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct) is useful for + advice specific to Debian mailing lists - Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I'm less convinced Wouter will accept this, but I think it should be on the ballot! - 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the - DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian - Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. - -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct - Thanks! Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Op woensdag 5 maart 2014 19:05:45 schreef Neil McGovern: Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC as a general purpose document, rather than have it specific to each medium. The information at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct is still useful as it stands. I'm hopeful Wouter will accept this one, as I don't think it substantially changes the CoC. - participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. -2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist - code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct - -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the +2. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct [snip] - Debian has a [diversity statement](http://www.debian.org/intro/diversity) - The [Debian Community Guidelines](http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/) by Enrico Zini contain some advice on how to communicate effectively. +- The [Mailing list code of + conduct](http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct) is useful for + advice specific to Debian mailing lists - Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I'm less convinced Wouter will accept this, but I think it should be on the ballot! - 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the - DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian - Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. - -4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. +3. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct - I second Wouter's proposal and I second both these amendments by Neil. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:38:02PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: I second Wouter's proposal and I second both these amendments by Neil. I also second Wouter's proposal and amendments by Neil. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output (e.g., ls -l). - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages. - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is working. - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list address itself; use the respective -request address instead. - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead. - Avoid sending large attachments. While I agree that these are useful suggestions (and that therefore they probably should be retained), these sound more like technical guidelines; I don't think a code of _conduct_ should contain technical explanations on how to configure your mail client. So I would suggest that for these things, we create something else (not a code of conduct) that is maintained by you, our listmasters. The (proposed) code of conduct could obviously refer to it from the further reading section, if that seems appropriate. Does that make sense? IMO yes. The code of conduct could link to a Best practices on Debian mailing lists document that the listmasters would maintain. - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. Well, heh. On that one, I think the current code of conduct is a mistake, because most mail clients make it very hard to do that. +1, I'm also in favor of dropping that requirement. Contributing to Debian lists imply some willingness to interact with people and you should not be much bothered by a CC. If you are, then you can most likely filter out duplicates with procmail. I appreciate getting a CC because I see replies to my mails earlier that way. The downside is that people who can't avoid replying within 5 minutes to every mails they get might quickly generate a noisy thread of 10 mails in a few hours without leaving the time to others to participate in the thread and have a healthier thread. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140227111705.gc23...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Conduct is about behaviour and social interaction. A CoC is about the emotional contents and effects of the message not about how it was delivered or how many bytes there were between newline characters. To me the strength of the CoC draft we are looking at here is that it doesn't concern itself with trivialities or with specific media. It talks about conduct -- that is behaviour, deportment, how we want people interact as human beings -- be respectful, be collaborative, assume good faith, be concise, be open. These are all about social interactions and not technical details on character limits, attachment sizes or whether people get CCs on messages. None of these technical things are conduct, they are, if you like, protocol. The CoC could happily refer to medium-specific guidelines for such minutiae if they are necessary. Let's not spend the next decade working to flesh out a 200pp document full of subsections for each different communications protocol we might use. Such a document becomes useless to everyone. Let's not overcomplicate this with rules-lawyering. cheers Stuart (who is pleased he refrained from adding a car analogy in here) -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprintBE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lenbrs$rib$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:42:47PM +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote: Conduct is about behaviour and social interaction. A CoC is about the emotional contents and effects of the message not about how it was delivered or how many bytes there were between newline characters. To me the strength of the CoC draft we are looking at here is that it doesn't concern itself with trivialities or with specific media. It talks about conduct -- that is behaviour, deportment, how we want people interact as human beings -- be respectful, be collaborative, assume good faith, be concise, be open. These are all about social interactions and not technical details on character limits, attachment sizes or whether people get CCs on messages. None of these technical things are conduct, they are, if you like, protocol. The CoC could happily refer to medium-specific guidelines for such minutiae if they are necessary. Let's not spend the next decade working to flesh out a 200pp document full of subsections for each different communications protocol we might use. Such a document becomes useless to everyone. Let's not overcomplicate this with rules-lawyering. I am astounded by the slenderness of the delta between what Stuart says above and the thoughts in my head I have been trying to extract and express without success. In other words, me too, +1, and hear hear. -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140227134526.ga16...@mavolio.codethink.co.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Alexander Wirt writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there are missing the mail/list specific parts. I am also not that happy with having several documents with the name 'Code of Conduct', maybe we can find a solution somehow. This is a good point. Either we could call them Project Code of Conduct Mailing lists Code of Conduct etc. or we have to think of some new names. Project Conduct Principles ? Not sure. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21263.37227.978859.503...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:42:47 +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote: To me the strength of the CoC draft we are looking at here is that it doesn't concern itself with trivialities or with specific media. It talks about conduct -- that is behaviour, deportment, how we want people interact as human beings -- be respectful, be collaborative, assume good faith, be concise, be open. These are all about social interactions and not technical details on character limits, attachment sizes or whether people get CCs on messages. None of these technical things are conduct, they are, if you like, protocol. The CoC could happily refer to medium-specific guidelines for such minutiae if they are necessary. Wow, thank you. You put my thoughts into way better words than I ever could have done. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Mark Knopfler: Junkie Doll signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Op maandag 24 februari 2014 08:47:57 schreef Alexander Wirt: Sorry for being late. No worries -- we don't always have the time :) That morning I found the time to read the CoC in detail. In that mail I speak primary for myself and not all listmasters. But I collected some opinions from the others forehand, therefore I hope that what I write is in line with the other listmasters. Thanks I am quite happy with the CoC as it is, I just have a few supplementary notes. - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there are missing the mail/list specific parts. Hm. The whole point of this exercise was to replace that code of conduct with a more generic and up-to-date one, so if you feel that this isn't good enough, then that's a bug. Can you be more specific about the bits that you think should not be removed from the current mailinglist coc? I am also not that happy with having several documents with the name 'Code of Conduct', maybe we can find a solution somehow. Yes, that would seem to be obvious; I don't think we need several codes of conduct. - I always found the netiquette [2] a very useful source, maybe we can add a link to it to the document. Good idea. - The administrators will divulge any bans to all Debian Developers for review. I know that this is the case for lists.d.o now, but I never saw other anything from other services. I have seen several such announcements from owner@bugs.d.o now, too. Are _all_ other administrators of 'Debian communication forums' aware of that change? If we go that way, we should probably move away from announcing them on -private and move to something else. Like an mbox on master, or something else (and in my eyes - non-public). I don't think it's necessary to move that. While the code of conduct says that bans should be made public to Debian Developers, it does not say how, where, in what manner, or even if bans should be made public _only_ to Debian Developers (although we might be somewhat more explicit about that). This is intentional; I think review of bans is a good thing, and I do think we should have it, but I don't want a document like this to impose any workflow on anyone. As such, personally I don't expect this to result in a major increase (other than has already happened) of such announcements to -private. I could be mistaken, of course. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi, *snip* - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there are missing the mail/list specific parts. Hm. The whole point of this exercise was to replace that code of conduct with a more generic and up-to-date one, so if you feel that this isn't good enough, then that's a bug. Can you be more specific about the bits that you think should not be removed from the current mailinglist coc? Your goals are honorable, but I am not sure if this possible. Let me see: I have some example that I don't want to lose, but most are for example not suitable for IRC: - Do not send spam; see the advertising policy below. (the advertising policy is the interesting part) - Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing lists where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on debian-user-french). - Make sure that you are using the proper list. In particular, don't send user-related questions to developer-related mailing lists. - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output (e.g., ls -l). - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages. - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is working. - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list address itself; use the respective -request address instead. - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead. - Avoid sending large attachments. - Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand. - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. - If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when you did not ask for it, do it privately. - If you send messages to lists to which you are not subscribed, always note that fact in the body of your message. This are a lot of points, and most of them don't fit to other mediums. I am also not that happy with having several documents with the name 'Code of Conduct', maybe we can find a solution somehow. Yes, that would seem to be obvious; I don't think we need several codes of conduct. I think that there are always medium specific rules that don't apply to other medium. One classic point specific to IRC would be not to use an CTCP VERSION to all clients. *snip* Are _all_ other administrators of 'Debian communication forums' aware of that change? If we go that way, we should probably move away from announcing them on -private and move to something else. Like an mbox on master, or something else (and in my eyes - non-public). I don't think it's necessary to move that. While the code of conduct says that bans should be made public to Debian Developers, it does not say how, where, in what manner, or even if bans should be made public _only_ to Debian Developers (although we might be somewhat more explicit about that). This is intentional; I think review of bans is a good thing, and I do think we should have it, but I don't want a document like this to impose any workflow on anyone. As such, personally I don't expect this to result in a major increase (other than has already happened) of such announcements to -private. OK Alex pgpb3zqlJ52jx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef u: On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi, *snip* - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there are missing the mail/list specific parts. Hm. The whole point of this exercise was to replace that code of conduct with a more generic and up-to-date one, so if you feel that this isn't good enough, then that's a bug. Can you be more specific about the bits that you think should not be removed from the current mailinglist coc? Your goals are honorable, but I am not sure if this possible. Let me see: I have some example that I don't want to lose, but most are for example not suitable for IRC: - Do not send spam; see the advertising policy below. (the advertising policy is the interesting part) Right, that one. I'm not sure this belongs in a code of conduct, for the same reason that we shouldn't publish bans for trolls or spammers. A code of conduct should be about conduct, i.e., social behaviour, not about don't be a pest. That doesn't mean we should not have a do not spam policy, nor that we cannot publish such a policy; just that I don't think it should be part of a code of _conduct_. In addition, personally I am not convinced that this part of the current code of conduct is very efficient in fighting spam, but then I am not in your shoes. Do you believe otherwise? If so, can you clarify? - Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing lists where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on debian-user-french). A clause like Please use the appropriate language for the medium you are using. In Debian, this is usually English, but there are exceptions (e.g. use French on the debian-user-french mailinglist, or Dutch on the #debian-nl IRC channel). could work. Having said that, I should note that my very first draft[1] did still contain this clause (or a similar one, at least); I'm not sure anymore why it was removed. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00060.html - Make sure that you are using the proper list. In particular, don't send user-related questions to developer-related mailing lists. Some of our communication channels have topic-specific subdivisions; please use the appropriate one for your topic, possibly with an example? - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output (e.g., ls -l). - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages. - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is working. - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list address itself; use the respective -request address instead. - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead. - Avoid sending large attachments. While I agree that these are useful suggestions (and that therefore they probably should be retained), these sound more like technical guidelines; I don't think a code of _conduct_ should contain technical explanations on how to configure your mail client. So I would suggest that for these things, we create something else (not a code of conduct) that is maintained by you, our listmasters. The (proposed) code of conduct could obviously refer to it from the further reading section, if that seems appropriate. Does that make sense? Additionally, the bits about large attachments and HTML sound like things that could more easily be done by a filter. If we don't want large attachments, we should make it technically impossible for people to send them (while making sure that those who try will get an informative bounce message). - Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand. I believe such a clause was originally part of the Be open item in my draft, but it got edited out. We could add it back, of course... - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. Well, heh. On that one, I think the current code of conduct is a mistake, because most mail clients make it very hard to do that. Yes, some mail clients do have a list reply option, but some will only send the reply to the mailinglist on which the person replying received the mail in question; any cross-posted mailinglists will be dropped, which is not always the right thing to do. Yes, one can edit the list of recipients and remove non-list recipients, but then those recipients who explicitly asked to be Cc'd somewhere up the thread will not receive those requested copies. I think we should default to what tools make easy, not to the option which requires manual work. I understand that this is the current policy, and if there is a strong feeling that we should retain it, I won't oppose keeping it. But my personal opinion is that it
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Alexander Wirt wrote: - Do not send spam; see the advertising policy below. (the advertising policy is the interesting part) - Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing lists where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on debian-user-french). - Make sure that you are using the proper list. In particular, don't send user-related questions to developer-related mailing lists. Reworded to use generic terminology these would be the same on IRC. - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output (e.g., ls -l). IRC equivalent would be to use pastebins. - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages. - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is working. Reworded to use generic terminology these would be the same on IRC. - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list address itself; use the respective -request address instead. - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead. Seem to be lists-specific. - Avoid sending large attachments. IRC equivalent would be to use pastebins. - Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand. Reworded to use generic terminology this would be the same on IRC. - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. - If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when you did not ask for it, do it privately. - If you send messages to lists to which you are not subscribed, always note that fact in the body of your message. Seem to be lists-specific. I think that there are always medium specific rules that don't apply to other medium. One classic point specific to IRC would be not to use an CTCP VERSION to all clients. Indeed, but many rules are also applicable to other forms of communication if worded generically. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caktje6hktotyd4emukd1ssakvch9frhpwd+ntdm5teyudpp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef Alexander Wirt: - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. Well, heh. ... I think we should default to what tools make easy, not to the option which requires manual work. The tools will never be able to do the right thing because the right thing is highly context dependent. On Debian lists it is convention to not CC unless there is some indicator that you should. On LKML not CCing widely is discouraged. Each community has their own rules and there are too many tools for all of them to ever be able to know about these differences. I understand that this is the current policy, and if there is a strong feeling that we should retain it, I won't oppose keeping it. But my personal opinion is that it should go. I'd prefer that it didn't change. If it did I'd have to figure out how to use nore...@debian.org in From, unsubscribe from the lists or get a completely new client and mail setup. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GpE=pTt5cuFEKV=vys+nbj8hifosrhhpfgbsgqkfs...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 01:47:07AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: - Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: I'm not sure how wiki.d.o bans would fit. We *could* list banned users on a specific page, I guess. But the vast majority of the bans we ever enact are for spamming. I feel like spamming and trolling should be considered a different phenomena than bans brought for other reasons. Agreed, 100%. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten. -- Malcolm Ray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225222948.gy9...@einval.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, February 24, 2014 08:47, Alexander Wirt wrote: - The administrators will divulge any bans to all Debian Developers for review. I know that this is the case for lists.d.o now, but I never saw other anything from other services. Are _all_ other administrators of 'Debian communication forums' aware of that change? If we go that way, we should probably move away from announcing them on -private and move to something else. Like an mbox on master, or something else (and in my eyes - non-public). It may make sense to publish bans in-band in the medium where they apply as much as possible. ML bans are sent to a mailinglist, IRC bans can be viewed already via the IRC protocol; probably it would also make sense if bans on the web forum would also somehow be registered in the context of that forum. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/c52163818a485cdb9f3568473a49d680.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Mon, February 24, 2014 08:47, Alexander Wirt wrote: - The administrators will divulge any bans to all Debian Developers for review. I know that this is the case for lists.d.o now, but I never saw other anything from other services. Are _all_ other administrators of 'Debian communication forums' aware of that change? If we go that way, we should probably move away from announcing them on -private and move to something else. Like an mbox on master, or something else (and in my eyes - non-public). It may make sense to publish bans in-band in the medium where they apply as much as possible. ML bans are sent to a mailinglist, IRC bans can be viewed already via the IRC protocol; probably it would also make sense if bans on the web forum would also somehow be registered in the context of that forum. I'm not sure how wiki.d.o bans would fit. We *could* list banned users on a specific page, I guess. But the vast majority of the bans we ever enact are for spamming. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140225042403.gu9...@einval.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: I'm not sure how wiki.d.o bans would fit. We *could* list banned users on a specific page, I guess. But the vast majority of the bans we ever enact are for spamming. The only non-spam-related bans I can remember were for specific people on specific wiki pages. Due to the way bans work in moinmoin these are all public in the raw text version of the pages. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6eo9+vhd+0bvysnjvxa9fhs4-r7x-tjrgbh0_vngo+...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: It may make sense to publish bans in-band in the medium where they apply as much as possible. ML bans are sent to a mailinglist, IRC bans can be viewed already via the IRC protocol; probably it would also make sense if bans on the web forum would also somehow be registered in the context of that forum. Alternatively, I would be OK with a mailbox (say b...@debian.org) which could be mailed by teams which enacted the bans. It would be trivial to enact a IRC bot to handle this for IRC[1], and it wouldn't be a huge deal for me as owner@bdo or listmaster@ldo to Cc: bans to such an address instead of debian-private. [Anyone who actually cared about bans could arrange to have a cronjob mail any new bans to them.] 1: I sort of want this already for #debian on both OFTC and FN, but my lack of copious free time has prevented me from even starting... -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Religion is religion, however you wrap it, and like Quell says, a preoccupation with the next world clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one. -- Richard K. Morgan Broken Angels p65 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140225053004.gl16...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
- Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: I'm not sure how wiki.d.o bans would fit. We *could* list banned users on a specific page, I guess. But the vast majority of the bans we ever enact are for spamming. I feel like spamming and trolling should be considered a different phenomena than bans brought for other reasons. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/32330072.41231393314427334.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: - Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: I'm not sure how wiki.d.o bans would fit. We *could* list banned users on a specific page, I guess. But the vast majority of the bans we ever enact are for spamming. I feel like spamming and trolling should be considered a different phenomena than bans brought for other reasons. Agreed, I (and I guess other listmasters too) don't plan to publish our antispam measures on -private. And I am pretty sure, no one really wants that. Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225075050.ga27...@lisa.snow-crash.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi, Op donderdag 13 februari 2014 14:13:40 schreef Alexander Wirt: On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If indeed listmasters do object (which I don't think will be the case, but of course I can't read their minds), then obviously we'll need to work with them to fix that. Indeed, if what we propose is in line with what listmasters believe should be done, then this issue would be moot, anyway. in my case it is more the lack of time to dive into that process. I still think we should comment it. Can you give me a reasonable time estimate? I want to push this forward, but I also do value your input. If there's no reply forthcoming from you, however, then these two goals are conflicting... Sorry for being late. That morning I found the time to read the CoC in detail. In that mail I speak primary for myself and not all listmasters. But I collected some opinions from the others forehand, therefore I hope that what I write is in line with the other listmasters. I am quite happy with the CoC as it is, I just have a few supplementary notes. - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there are missing the mail/list specific parts. I am also not that happy with having several documents with the name 'Code of Conduct', maybe we can find a solution somehow. - I always found the netiquette [2] a very useful source, maybe we can add a link to it to the document. - The administrators will divulge any bans to all Debian Developers for review. I know that this is the case for lists.d.o now, but I never saw other anything from other services. Are _all_ other administrators of 'Debian communication forums' aware of that change? If we go that way, we should probably move away from announcing them on -private and move to something else. Like an mbox on master, or something else (and in my eyes - non-public). That's it from my side, I hope it was useful. Thanks for your work Alex - Debian Listmaster [1] https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html#codeofconduct [2] http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html pgpdKn4_Fe9OD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Op donderdag 13 februari 2014 14:13:40 schreef Alexander Wirt: On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If indeed listmasters do object (which I don't think will be the case, but of course I can't read their minds), then obviously we'll need to work with them to fix that. Indeed, if what we propose is in line with what listmasters believe should be done, then this issue would be moot, anyway. in my case it is more the lack of time to dive into that process. I still think we should comment it. Can you give me a reasonable time estimate? I want to push this forward, but I also do value your input. If there's no reply forthcoming from you, however, then these two goals are conflicting... -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/32420579.77qxmeh...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:49:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Is this overriding the listmasters then? I'll leave it up to the secretary to decide whether this is, indeed, overriding listmasters, but I don't think it is, or should be. I think it would be better to get an opinion from the listmasters. If the listmasters are happy with the GR then clearly it's not overruling them. If they are unhappy with it then given that they're mostly going to be implementing it we should hear about it and take their comments on board! I would be happy to second this GR provided that the listmasters approve, or at least don't object. I don't want to CC the listmasters in this thread on -vote because they probably don't want a zillion crossposts. As the proponent and editor, would you send them a mail asking their opinion ? I did actually already do that (by mail to listmaster@, on 2013-11-27, with Message-ID: 5295bda8.80...@debian.org), but never got a reply. Whether that is because the mail was forgotten, or because they just agreed with it and didn't think it therefore required a reply or something else entirely, I cannot say. But given the level of consensus I had already achieved on -project, and given the fact that I do think it is mostly in line with their current policies, means I thought it better to move this forward. If indeed listmasters do object (which I don't think will be the case, but of course I can't read their minds), then obviously we'll need to work with them to fix that. Indeed, if what we propose is in line with what listmasters believe should be done, then this issue would be moot, anyway. So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think this is entirely constitutional... I think this would be dealt with by a rubric at the top of the GR which says: The Debian Project adopts the following Position Statement under 4.1.5 of the Constitution. (This is not a Foundation Document.) That sounds reasonable, yes. The position statement really only is the we accept a code of conduct part. Everything else isn't. The part saying the DPL can change the CoC surely is part of the position statement. Yes, obviously. What I meant was the bits on top, excluding the CoC itself; as in, the concept of a CoC and its procedures is what the vote is about, not the actual text of the CoC. Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so. I think you should indent it, or put it in an appendix, or something. Yes, that would work, too. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140213102353.ge16...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:49:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Is this overriding the listmasters then? I'll leave it up to the secretary to decide whether this is, indeed, overriding listmasters, but I don't think it is, or should be. I think it would be better to get an opinion from the listmasters. If the listmasters are happy with the GR then clearly it's not overruling them. If they are unhappy with it then given that they're mostly going to be implementing it we should hear about it and take their comments on board! I would be happy to second this GR provided that the listmasters approve, or at least don't object. I don't want to CC the listmasters in this thread on -vote because they probably don't want a zillion crossposts. As the proponent and editor, would you send them a mail asking their opinion ? I did actually already do that (by mail to listmaster@, on 2013-11-27, with Message-ID: 5295bda8.80...@debian.org), but never got a reply. Whether that is because the mail was forgotten, or because they just agreed with it and didn't think it therefore required a reply or something else entirely, I cannot say. But given the level of consensus I had already achieved on -project, and given the fact that I do think it is mostly in line with their current policies, means I thought it better to move this forward. If indeed listmasters do object (which I don't think will be the case, but of course I can't read their minds), then obviously we'll need to work with them to fix that. Indeed, if what we propose is in line with what listmasters believe should be done, then this issue would be moot, anyway. in my case it is more the lack of time to dive into that process. I still think we should comment it. Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140213131340.gb3...@smithers.cadcae.loc
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
I'd be happy to sponsor a resolution that simply adopted the COC as a position statement of the day and asked the appropriate parties to take that as the project's current position. I think the DPL and listmasters can figure out where on the website to put it, and can figure out how to evolve it. If what we're trying to say is that today, her and now, this is what we believe, then let's just say that. So, my preference is to keep the COC inline and lose all the text about where it goes or how its updated. Just say it's our position statement at time of adoption. to me that explicitly lets existing normal processes evolve it. --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/01442c248729-332334d9-a029-49f3-b1cb-aaaf16abba2a-000...@email.amazonses.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Sam Hartman writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): I'd be happy to sponsor a resolution that simply adopted the COC as a position statement of the day and asked the appropriate parties to take that as the project's current position. I think the DPL and listmasters can figure out where on the website to put it, and can figure out how to evolve it. If what we're trying to say is that today, her and now, this is what we believe, then let's just say that. So, my preference is to keep the COC inline and lose all the text about where it goes or how its updated. Just say it's our position statement at time of adoption. to me that explicitly lets existing normal processes evolve it. At the very least it doesn't do so _explicitly_. You are really saying that it does so implicitly. I think it is better to be explicit. That will save us future argument if the DPL says they are amending the CoC and someone objects on the grounds that it ought to go through another GR. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21245.379.679178.633...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi Wouter, Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. How do you see this being effective? Are you envisioning it being agreed to as part of the NM process perhaps? Additionally, how core is this to the project - could it be viewed as a Foundation Document? IRC channels are particularly interesting, as they also hold additional standards to be upheld. The actual text seems to be somewhat geared towards mailing lists, and then has other communication mechanisms bolted in to it. As an obvious omission, IRC ops aren't on https://www.debian.org/intro/organization. 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Is this overriding the listmasters then? 3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think this is entirely constitutional... Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:40:17AM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Hi Wouter, Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. How do you see this being effective? Are you envisioning it being agreed to as part of the NM process perhaps? I'm not sure that would send out the right message; we don't want just DDs to abide by a code of conduct; we want every contributor on our communication channels to do so. Additionally, how core is this to the project - could it be viewed as a Foundation Document? I don't think we should see it that strict. The reason I want to put this before the developer body as a whole is that we should have the developers agree on the principle of an enforceable code of conduct. However, it is certainly possible that some future situation would abide by the letter, but not the spirit, of this code; in that case, I think having a difficult-to-modify document would be positively harmful. IRC channels are particularly interesting, as they also hold additional standards to be upheld. The actual text seems to be somewhat geared towards mailing lists, True. I don't think this is entirely unreasonable, because -- let's face it -- Debian communications *are* mostly mailing lists. We do have other channels, but everything of importance is done by mail. and then has other communication mechanisms bolted in to it. I didn't want to come up with an enumeration of all possible and impossible communication methods used by Debian; that would necessarily be somewhat limiting. I do think having a clause in that regard is necessary for that reason, but am welcome to other formulations that would clarify the meaning -- keeping in mind that I'm not a native English speaker ;-) As an obvious omission, IRC ops aren't on https://www.debian.org/intro/organization. Yes, and that's something which should be fixed IMO, but not necessarily as part of this GR. 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Is this overriding the listmasters then? Fair question. I was under the impression that the code of conduct had not changed in the past decade; given that, I thought that, certainly, the current listmasters wouldn't have been involved in its authoring very much if that were true. Given that background, I would not have considered it overriding the listmasters. A quick perusal of the CVS logs shows me wrong, however, and given that, the question isn't undeserved. Regardless, I think the proposed code of conduct doesn't contradict current behaviour of listmasters; it only ratifies it (and where it doesn't, that's a bug in my proposed text). Indeed, some parts of the current code of conduct are not present in the proposed one; but these are merely the bits that are unenforceable (the do not spam and use common sense bits), should be enforced through technical means rather than social ones (the don't send HTML and don't send large attachments ones), etc. I'll leave it up to the secretary to decide whether this is, indeed, overriding listmasters, but I don't think it is, or should be. 3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think this is entirely constitutional... The position statement really only is the we accept a code of conduct part. Everything else isn't. Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:13:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:40:17AM +, Neil McGovern wrote: So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think this is entirely constitutional... The position statement really only is the we accept a code of conduct part. Everything else isn't. Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so. I do think it's also important to agree that the code of conduct should be enforcable in some way so there are consequences for breaking it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Wouter Verhelst: The position statement really only is the we accept a code of conduct part. Everything else isn't. Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so. I would propose an initial CoC as integral part of the GR, but allow the DPL to amend the Code as warranted (while keeping to its spirit). If somebody doesn't like whatever the DPL does to the text, they can propose a new GR. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/12/2014 05:59 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: == 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct 3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. 4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct ## Be respectful In a project the size of Debian, inevitably there will be people with whom you may disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that, but even so, remain respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour or personal attacks, and a community in which people feel threatened is not a healthy community. ## Assume good faith Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or may have different cultural backgrounds ## Be collaborative Debian is a large and complex project; there is always more to learn within Debian. It's good to ask for help when you need it. Similarly, offers for help should be seen in the context of our shared goal of improving Debian. When you make something for the benefit of the project, be willing to explain to others how it works, so that they can build on your work to make it even better. ## Try to be concise Keep in mind that what you write once will be read by hundreds of persons. Writing a short email means people can understand the conversation as efficiently as possible. When a long explanation is necessary, consider adding a summary. Try to bring new arguments to a conversation so that each mail adds something unique to the thread, keeping in mind that the rest of the thread still contains the other messages with arguments that have already been made. Try to stay on topic, especially in discussions that are already fairly large. ## Be open Most ways of communication used within Debian allow for public and private communication. As per paragraph three of the [social contract](http://www.debian.org/social_contract), you should preferably use public methods of communication for Debian-related messages, unless posting something sensitive. This applies to messages for help or Debian-related support, too; not only is a public support request much more likely to result in an answer to your question, it also makes sure that any inadvertent mistakes made by people answering your question will be more easily detected and corrected. ## In case of problems While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you may reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However, regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, it should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than that they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion. Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see [the page on Debian's organizational structure](http://www.debian.org/intro/organization) # Further reading Some of the links in this section do not refer to documents that are part of this code of conduct, nor are they authoritative within Debian. However, they all do contain useful information on how to conduct oneself on our communication channels. - Debian has a [diversity statement](http://www.debian.org/intro/diversity) - The [Debian Community Guidelines](http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/) by Enrico Zini contain some advice on how to communicate effectively. == Seconded. - -- - -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething Debian Developer http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
- Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: # Debian Code of Conduct ... ## In case of problems Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see [the page on Debian's organizational structure](http://www.debian.org/intro/organization) It seems to me that with the Code of Conduct (afterwords CoC) that we are institutionalizing a penal system in Debian. With that in mind, I think we should follow some of the best practices typical of these processes in other organizations. I also think some aspects of the CoC relate to obligations we have taken on in the Social Contract. It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the evidence collected, the criteria the evidence must meet and the persons making the final decision should all be public record. I reference the Social Contract mandate to not hide problems in support of this concept. Please do not interpret this suggestion as an attack on the character of the listmasters or any other project member who donates their valuable personal time to make things happen. That is not the intent. I have the highest level of respect for everyone who contributes to the project and they have my heartfelt thanks for the operating system I use every day. I feel we must see clearly that the CoC and its related ban punishment effectively amounts to a nascent court system for the project. Bans have been treated as an embarrassing thing that we want to keep out of the public eye but they constitute a very serious punishment. A comprehensive ban is effectively a death sentence for its target because, from the perspective of the project, that person will cease to exist. This may seem strong language but some members of the project feel a great deal of passion for the effort and would regard an eviction as catastrophic. I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent, policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and peer review. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/24545501.20871392227105291.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:45 -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the evidence collected, the criteria the evidence must meet and the persons making the final decision should all be public record. I reference the Social Contract mandate to not hide problems in support of this concept. Hi ALL, I Fully support this proposal and especially the above section. I think the GR should include something in this sense. Cheers; signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:59 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] ## Assume good faith Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or may have different cultural backgrounds ## Be collaborative [...] Is this last paragraph complete? It is at least missing a full stop and following blank line. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the evidence collected, the criteria the evidence must meet and the persons making the final decision should all be public record. I reference the Social Contract mandate to not hide problems in support of this concept. The reason why listmaster@l.d.o and ow...@b.do do not disclose or discuss bans in public are because: 1) We wish to avoid negative connotations from someone being temporarily banned being attached to the person after they have rectified their behavior 2) In the case where some agent is clearly trolling or otherwise engaging in attention seeking behavior, posting publicly just adds additional indication of this behavior. That said, for owner@b.d.o, everything regarding a ban is sent to owner@b.d.o which is available to all DDs, and bans are announced to debian-priv...@lists.debian.org I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent, policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and peer review. I don't believe too detailed of a procedure is going to be feasible without dramatically wasting listmaster@, owner@, IRC operators, and wiki admin's time. We certainly can publish bans on -private, and I'm OK with there being review after the fact if necessary, but I'm not personally going to waste my limited time with a burdensome bureaucratic procedure to actually put the ban in place in the first case. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140212194355.gs5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:25:12PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:59 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] ## Assume good faith Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or may have different cultural backgrounds ## Be collaborative [...] Is this last paragraph complete? It is at least missing a full stop and following blank line. It is, though it indeed misses a full stop there. The error was introduced in http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/wouter/coc.git;a=commitdiff;h=fa60ac6b67051bf10294f5b57f1e92188e9e05de;hp=a341fed0106959bdf6ed7292bf62ca56ffb3c9ef I've committed a change to my git repository to remedy that; I don't think this minor change needs me to restart the procedure, but further updates will contain the fixed text. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140212214734.gc16...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Wouter Verhelst writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Is this overriding the listmasters then? ... I'll leave it up to the secretary to decide whether this is, indeed, overriding listmasters, but I don't think it is, or should be. I think it would be better to get an opinion from the listmasters. If the listmasters are happy with the GR then clearly it's not overruling them. If they are unhappy with it then given that they're mostly going to be implementing it we should hear about it and take their comments on board! I would be happy to second this GR provided that the listmasters approve, or at least don't object. I don't want to CC the listmasters in this thread on -vote because they probably don't want a zillion crossposts. As the proponent and editor, would you send them a mail asking their opinion ? So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think this is entirely constitutional... I think this would be dealt with by a rubric at the top of the GR which says: The Debian Project adopts the following Position Statement under 4.1.5 of the Constitution. (This is not a Foundation Document.) The position statement really only is the we accept a code of conduct part. Everything else isn't. The part saying the DPL can change the CoC surely is part of the position statement. Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so. I think you should indent it, or put it in an appendix, or something. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21243.64143.631255.193...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Ean Schuessler writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): I feel we must see clearly that the CoC and its related ban punishment effectively amounts to a nascent court system for the project. I don't think that's the case and I don't want to see it that way. A comprehensive ban is effectively a death sentence for its target because, from the perspective of the project, that person will cease to exist. This isn't really true IMO. Someone who is banned can always send a message privately to a sympathetic contributor, who can forward it if it seems relevant or interesting. (I have in fact done this for a contributor who was under some kind of cloud, when they had a relevant and constructive contribution to make.) I think that this is a very important practical safety net. It also brings the possibility of a review. I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent, policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and peer review. I disagree. I don't think that making these processes heavyweight is a good idea. I have had very poor experiences with policy-driven processes of this kind. I get the impression from your mail that you would vote against the CoC in its current form. That's your prerogative, of course. Do you intend to draft a counterproposal and if so how long do you expect that process to take ? The CoC in its current form has been extensively discussed on -project already, of course. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21243.64746.711225.309...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
- Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: This isn't really true IMO. Someone who is banned can always send a message privately to a sympathetic contributor, who can forward it if it seems relevant or interesting. (I have in fact done this for a contributor who was under some kind of cloud, when they had a relevant and constructive contribution to make.) I have seen this used in years past and its seems to underscore the second class status of the person involved rather than relieve it. This is, of course, my opinion. I disagree. I don't think that making these processes heavyweight is a good idea. I have had very poor experiences with policy-driven processes of this kind. I agree. No one likes red tape. I don't think basic record keeping has to be heavy weight. A ban is an infrequent event and is regarded seriously. A process just slightly less onerous than a kernel commit does not seem like too much to ask. I get the impression from your mail that you would vote against the CoC in its current form. That's your prerogative, of course. Do you intend to draft a counterproposal and if so how long do you expect that process to take ? The CoC in its current form has been extensively discussed on -project already, of course. I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. It does not seem unreasonable to me that if a developer is curious about why another developer was banned that they should be able to find out what messages provoked the ban, when a warning was issued, who implemented the ban and why (briefly) the band was warranted. This could be as simple as the listmaster forwarding a couple of signed messages to a procmail script. I would be willing to help modify the necessary scripts. The current procmail rules do not contain documentation about the messages that provoked the ban. Ironically it is currently easier to find out who has been banned than it is to find out why. ps. I will also be working on an automated sarcasm detector which may or may not be helpful in streamlining the ban workflow. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/13336517.22291392250726231.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The level of process should be proportional to the level of injury that could be caused by the action. We're talking about an action (temporary bans) that is considerably milder than a traffic ticket. We should pick a corresponding level of process. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87lhxfyhyv@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The CoC takes into account having a bad day, and instead specifically focuses on serious or persistent offenders. (i.e. one-time verbiage that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) The level of process should be proportional to the level of injury that could be caused by the action. We're talking about an action (temporary bans) that is considerably milder than a traffic ticket. We should pick a corresponding level of process. To keep from repeating it, everything below is IMHO: The CoC isn't about process, but rather meant to encourage keeping communications civil and discouraging uncivil communication, along with stating some reasoning. It's intentionally short and simple. The specific process to use concerning consequences as well as the specific consequences are a related but separate matter. For the CoC it's enough to simply say that there are consequences and a hint about what could realistically be done. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us writes: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The CoC takes into account having a bad day, and instead specifically focuses on serious or persistent offenders. (i.e. one-time verbiage that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) Ack, sorry, I see that you took my reply as being about the CoC. I was intending to specifically address Ean's request that we have a more formal process with required warnings and record-keeping and so forth. I have no problems with the CoC as proposed. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87eh377eqk@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 21:39:47 Russ Allbery wrote: Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us writes: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The CoC takes into account having a bad day, and instead specifically focuses on serious or persistent offenders. (i.e. one-time verbiage that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) Ack, sorry, I see that you took my reply as being about the CoC. I was intending to specifically address Ean's request that we have a more formal process with required warnings and record-keeping and so forth. I have no problems with the CoC as proposed. Oh. ;-) Okay cool. Sorry for the confusion. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
