Hi all!
Since the can of worms has been opened, thanks Enrico and all hail
Pandora, I hope I do not offend by reading this thread and the
aforementioned Code. I will add my two copper pieces and hope I am
being constructive.
I generally agree with the spirit and particulars of this discussion.
I
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:10:28PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
Same. And since the discussion seems to have stalled, I think we
should push this live. Where do you want to see this, Enrico?
I'd like to see it here: http://debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml
Thank you all for making this happen!
I missed a by in my draft. Can someone add it please?
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:34:16PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
Same. And since the discussion seems to have stalled, I think we
should push this live. Where do you want to see this, Enrico?
I'd like to see it here: http://debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml
I found the email address for the
also sprach Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org [2015-03-24 10:05 +0100]:
By default, all presentation material should be suitable for people
aged 12 and above.
If you could reasonably assume that some people may be offended your
talk, please state so explicitly in the submission notes.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org wrote:
Neither able (for lack of knowledge of the debconf orga structure) nor
willing (for lack of time and general overcommittment), sorry.
I am not sure
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:05 PM, gregor herrmann
gregor+deb...@comodo.priv.at wrote:
This sounds much like what was proposed in the discussion about the
DebConf CoC back in September on -discuss (although referring to
other lines in the Be inclusive section). IIRC this mail from Marga
was very
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote:
It use the word should, not must, so I interpret as: Be inclusive,
do not add *unnecessary* restriction on age.
While that is a good interpretation, being explicit could help avoid
arguments over which interpretation is
Hello Enrico,
On 04.03.2015 13:08, Enrico Zini wrote:
Hello,
I noticed in http://debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml, that is required to
be accepted by speakers in DebConf, that is still says All presentation
material should be suitable for people aged 12 and above.
It use the word should,
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:08:57 +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
I noticed in http://debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml, that is required to
be accepted by speakers in DebConf, that is still says All presentation
material should be suitable for people aged 12 and above.
[..]
It could be ok if that
Hello,
I noticed in http://debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml, that is required to
be accepted by speakers in DebConf, that is still says All presentation
material should be suitable for people aged 12 and above.
I would like that bit to be clarified, for two reasons:
1. last year that rule was
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org wrote:
Because many of the things that I treasure most in my life might be
considered by some people unsuitable for an audience of 12, I
considerably limited the scope of my social interactions in Portland,
limiting myself to
12 matches
Mail list logo
