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 conflag
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,
--
Rap
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"
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The danger of having a list of "do not"s 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 s
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't"s is not exhaustive,
and anybody who argues that their behavior sho
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 so
Hi Paul,
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:43:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> To the candidates,
>
> Which packages from Debian contrib/non-free do you use or have installed?
>
On my laptop, I have: firmware-realtek, icc-profiles, intel-microcode, skype
and steam from non-free, and flashplugin-nonfree,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> In addition, a list of "do not"s 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: "
Hi Neil,
In your rebuttal, you are quite critical of the idea of a board.
You raise concerns about the risk of creating a cabal, and about
transparency and democratic accountability.
I fully agree that those concerns are valid ones, and actually even
mentioned them in my platform ("Of course, the
Mark Brown 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 evasion with t
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 fe
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 writes:
> This Code of Conduct is afraid to scare away potential contributors; so
> a lot of
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 p
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 not"s will make people assume that the
> > project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one
> > participant of the CoC B
- "Russ Allbery" 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 of our
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 writes:
>
> > This C
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 appropr
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Without trying to get a cleaner sheet first, vrms says:
> Firmwares, documentation (make-doc, manpages-posix{,-dev}), rar (I had
> to open a RAR 3.0 archive some time ago, and forgot to remove the package),
> flashplugin-nonfree, virtualbox.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On my laptop, I have: firmware-realtek, icc-profiles, intel-microcode, skype
> and steam from non-free, and flashplugin-nonfree, iucode-tool from contrib.
>
> On my server, I have pine, which I don't use but some of the users on it seem
> to
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> I don't think that splitting this up helps our users. Using debian.org
>> provides a trusted distribution mechanism. I think it's better that
>> people get trusted non-free packages from us, than get them from a
>> rand
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:58:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If one of our upstreams said that they wanted to rename a public API
> in a widely-used shared library because they thought the old name
> wasn't very accurate, we would almost certainly beg them not to, due
> to all of the pain this w
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:58:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If one of our upstreams said that they wanted to rename a public API in
>> a widely-used shared library because they thought the old name wasn't
>> very accurate, we would almost certainly beg them not t
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:13:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the analogy holds, though. With a shared library, you don't
> drop the old API until you have to do an ABI break for other reasons,
> which means that old binaries won't work against the new library
> anyway. At that point, y
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> What I'm saying is that there is no need of dropping the old API in any
> foreseeable future. Just stop documenting it.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Okay, that probably minimizes the pain for
everyone else, although I still don't really see the point.
> Because as
25 matches
Mail list logo
