- "Wouter Verhelst" 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 commun
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 crit
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
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
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:45:05AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> 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 agree with
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 whic
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:45:05 Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Wouter Verhelst" 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. Co
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 se
- "Ian Jackson" 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
Ean Schuessler 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
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ean Schuessler 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
Chris Knadle writes:
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ean Schuessler 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 a
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 21:39:47 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Knadle writes:
> > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Ean Schuessler writes:
> >>> I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not
> >>> require a record keeping process. I actually
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:48:04PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> For IRC it's a bit more difficult, because we do not long our IRC
> channels by default (or at least I'm not aware we do), with the
> exception of meetings run with the help of meetbot. That means that it
> would be rather diffic
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:45:05AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> With my experience of the last weeks, I can just say: without me. I
> won't public those bans in the public, if someone else wants to do
> that: feel free, but please don't count on me.
FWIW, please note that (at least for me): publ
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > With my experience of the last weeks, I can just say: without me. I
> > won't public those bans in the public, if someone else wants to do
> > that: feel free, but please don't coun
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > With my experience of the last weeks, I can just say: without me. I
> > > won't public those bans in the public, if someone else want
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.
I
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 DP
- "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" wrote:
> Agreed. It will serve no purpose but to put everyone at risk [of
> legal
> actions] and extra nuisances. We can have a private location with
> this data
> which only DDs can access for governance purposes, if required (and I
> *do not* think it is re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
- From the IRC perspective, we welcome the CoC -- it's nice to have
a document to point people to which clearly articulates the sort of
behaviour we want and the sort of environment we would like to
maintain. A CoC is a great aspirational device a
Stuart Prescott writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> - From the IRC perspective, we welcome the CoC -- it's nice to have
> a document to point people to which clearly articulates the sort of
> behaviour we want and the sort of environment we would like to
>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> For IRC it's a bit more difficult, because we do not long our IRC
> channels by default (or at least I'm not aware we do), with the
> exception of meetings run with the help of meetbot.
...
> i.e. publicly log our IRC channels.
That wou
On 2014-02-24, Paul Wise wrote:
> That would be nice, the IRC channels are currently a big back-channel
> that hides a bunch of useful information from the wider public.
Much of irc are semiprivate chatter and socializing and not really
something that should be available to the wider public.
It
Sune Vuorela writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> Much of irc are semiprivate chatter and socializing and not really
> something that should be available to the wider public.
I don't think this is realistic for channels which anyone in the world
can join. There are
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
>> Much of irc are semiprivate chatter and socializing and not really
>> something that should be available to the wider public.
>
> I don't think
On 2014-02-24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I don't think this is realistic for channels which anyone in the world
> can join. There are no doubt many people who have private logs and
> there would be nothing stopping anyone making such a log public
> without our consent.
This is true for any electronic
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:00:07PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > For IRC it's a bit more difficult, because we do not long our IRC
> > channels by default (or at least I'm not aware we do), with the
> > exception of meetings run with the help of meetbot.
> ...
> > i.e. publicly log our IRC channels.
Hi,
Andrey Rahmatullin:
> One could argue that if there is information that is so useful it should
> be available to the general public then it should be manually polished up
> and published in designated places (documentation).
>
One could argue that the information / documentation is already re
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text
> files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess
> the real concern) ?
Several of our derivatives (at least Maemo, Ubuntu) have public logs
of their IRC
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:28:39PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text
> > files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess
> > the real concern) ?
>
> Several
Hi,
Lars Wirzenius:
> I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any
> useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists,
> git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where
> we already put information.
>
I agree.
The second problem
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Thus I suspect that the logs won't be very useful.
Due to Debian being focussed in the European timezones, most of my use
of IRC is reading backlog, which is pretty much the same has reading
public logs. I still find IRC useful and even ess
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
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 t
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
Op dinsdag 25 februari 2014 19:02:49 schreef Lars Wirzenius:
> I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any
> useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists,
> git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where
> we already put infor
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:28:39PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Personally I think it would bring some much needed transparency to
> what is becoming one of the more essential Debian communication
> channels to be on. Just like we archive mailing lists and record
> DebConf talks/BoFs, we should public
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 10:49:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op dinsdag 25 februari 2014 19:02:49 schreef Lars Wirzenius:
> > I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any
> > useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists,
> > git commit messages,
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I think the increasing importance of IRC for people to keep up to date
> on developments in Debian is a bad thing as it excludes people who
> cannot use IRC regularly enough (such as myself). The sheer volume of
> unedited logs will be too
Op zaterdag 1 maart 2014 11:40:11 schreef Jonathan Dowland:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 10:49:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 25 februari 2014 19:02:49 schreef Lars Wirzenius:
> > > I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and
any
> > > useful information shoul
Jonathan Dowland dijo [Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:40:11AM +]:
> > Which, I think, is the status quo (except in cases where meetbot is used,
> > but then logs *are* available and good use of meetbot makes them
> > readable)
>
> I believe there are Debian sub-communities (and communities of other
-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.
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.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kurt Roeckx 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.
>>
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 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 resoluti
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 constitu
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 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"):
> >
Kurt Roeckx (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 yo
Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> Kurt Roeckx (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.
>
> Conven
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'
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 co
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
[Jonathan Dowland]
> I think the increasing importance of IRC for people to keep up to
> date on developments in Debian is a bad thing as it excludes people
> who cannot use IRC regularly enough (such as myself).
Increasing importance? What has changed? I don't have the impression
that IRC is a
Peter Samuelson writes:
> [Jonathan Dowland]
>> I think the increasing importance of IRC for people to keep up to date
>> on developments in Debian is a bad thing as it excludes people who
>> cannot use IRC regularly enough (such as myself).
> Increasing importance? What has changed? I don't h
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
My apologies if my clumsy reply to the web version of the list damaged
attributions or broke the thread.
> Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef u:
>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>
> >
>
>> - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion.
>> Lines longer
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
Note: I am not (yet) a developer and am therefore without franchise
(voting rights) in the Debian community.
On 3/20/14, 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
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-des
> 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/20
Hi Scott,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 09:58:16PM +1100, Scott Ferguson 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
64 matches
Mail list logo
