Hi,
Norbert Preining wrote (17 Apr 2014 23:12:58 GMT) :
Oh, and access to science knowledge and to the material means to do
spend time doing research is not equally distributed either.
When basically the same groups are historically excluded from science
Ouch, please. We are far away from
Hi,
[Reading this entire thread before voting.
Clearly too late, or too early. Sorry.]
Steve Langasek wrote (24 Mar 2014 04:37:49 GMT) :
While it's worth discussing how the code of conduct can be improved, this is
a wholly unscientific appeal to authority. There may happen to be a group
that
Oh, and access to science knowledge and to the material means to do
spend time doing research is not equally distributed either.
When basically the same groups are historically excluded from science
Ouch, please. We are far away from the times when women were
excluded from science. Don't bring
Hi Solveig,
I think if you do something, do it right. Lots of feminists, who work on
these questions since years, collectively, and are concerned by the
problem, have documented not only *why* have a CoC, but also *how* - not
following their advice is silly and wrong.
IMHO you are
Hi Solveig,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Solveig wrote:
I can write specific amendments, if somebody is willing to sponsor them :)
Please do. I tend to agree with what Steve said. It doesn't hurt to have a
list of don't but this should not replace the inspirational part of the
CoC.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:47:43AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi Solveig,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Solveig wrote:
I can write specific amendments, if somebody is willing to sponsor them :)
Please do. I tend to agree with what Steve said. It doesn't hurt to have a
list of don't
Actually
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The danger of having a list of do nots is that people will do
something which is not on the list, and then point to it and say see,
it's allowed by the code of conduct when pointed out that they're being
a dick.
It's quite common to have an short
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog:
Please do. I tend to agree with what Steve said. It doesn't hurt to have a
list of don't but this should not replace the inspirational part of the
CoC.
It should also state that the list of don'ts is not exhaustive,
and anybody who argues that their behavior should be
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The proposed code of conduct is not meant to be a law text; it is not
meant to be all-encompassing. It is meant to show people what the right
way to move forward is, and it tries to do so in a positive sense. This
is after some
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In addition, a list of do nots will make people assume that the
project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one
participant of the CoC BoF during debconf, when the draft CoC was still
somewhat negative: I get
Mark Brown broo...@debian.org writes:
The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing
Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to
realise what appropriate behaviour is. Personally I do tend to share
some of the concerns about rules lawyering and
Hi Solveig,
[I didn't have a lot of time this morning, so I could only fire off a
quick mail down the thread. This mail does deserve a more in-depth
answer, however, so here goes]
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote:
[...]
I think if you do something, do it right. Lots of
In general, I understand where Wouter is coming from, and the points that
Steve made about inspiring people to behave better in public. However,
this one paragraph really lept out at me.
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
This Code of Conduct is afraid to scare away potential
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote:
2. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the
forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators,
please see [the page on
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:43:18PM +0100, enr...@enricozini.org wrote:
[...]
Solveig's email made me think of a different use case, though: telling
those we want to keep, but who are new on our mailing list, what they
can expect. Something along the lines of:
Things like these are not
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In addition, a list of do nots will make people assume that the
project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one
participant of the CoC BoF during
- Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I think this is a mistake.
The experiences of other groups have mostly convinced me that the
point of
a Code of Conduct should be to scare away potential contributors who
cannot or are unwilling to behave according to the standards that we
expect
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:19:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
In general, I understand where Wouter is coming from, and the points that
Steve made about inspiring people to behave better in public. However,
this one paragraph really lept out at me.
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:35:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing
Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to
realise what appropriate
Hi!
[short version: The Code of Conduct should be vastly rewritten. Yes,
*before* voting on it]
A few days ago, i saw the proposal for a Code of Conduct. First I was
very glad, then I read it and was perplexed. I made some research, which
confirmed my suspicion: the Code of Conduct that is
Hi Solveig,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote:
[short version: The Code of Conduct should be vastly rewritten. Yes,
*before* voting on it]
A few days ago, i saw the proposal for a Code of Conduct. First I was
very glad, then I read it and was perplexed. I made some
21 matches
Mail list logo
