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
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
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:
> >
> > The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
> >participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
> >communication within t
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> The first one is now:
>
>
> 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.
>
> Updates to this code of con
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:07:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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:
> >
> > The Debian pr
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:
>
> The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
>participants to its mailingl
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 amen
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, inst
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 follo
* 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
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 11:28:00AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi Wouter,
>
> On 8 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Wouter Verhelst 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,
Hi Wouter,
On 8 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Wouter Verhelst 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 t
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
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
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:25:26PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> 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
> &
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
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:
>
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&
(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
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
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
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
> >
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
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'
-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
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:14:08PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> 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 authorisin
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 whol
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
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
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 statem
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
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 f
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
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
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"):
> >
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.
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 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"):
> &g
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.
Sylv
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
>> >
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.
-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
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 | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C
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
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 C
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
>com
-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
>> me
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
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 Condu
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 strengt
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 itse
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
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, 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
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, 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
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 fr
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 01:47:07AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>- "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.
>
>I feel like spamm
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "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.
>
> I feel like spamming and tro
- "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.
I feel like spamming and trolling should be considered a different
phenomena than bans bro
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
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 peopl
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
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 commun
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 obvious
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. Inde
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
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
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 "maili
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.
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
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 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
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
- "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 ("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
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 t
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 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, 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, 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
- "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
-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
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 int
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 enti
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 pro
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 mailing
Hi all,
This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
This code of conduct has been drafted during debconf, and been refined
during a BoF session there and in a discussion on the debian-project
mailinglist. For more details, please s
89 matches
Mail list logo
