--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
On Friday, 26 October 2018 15:39:40 PDT Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> > But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community
> > is this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems
> > necessary that we do.
>
> Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on
Thank you for your answers, Thiago!
> If we took your argument to the extreme, then why would we need a
Constitution
> if we have judges?
As I said, I'm not against any CoC by default. I just tried to express that
professional judges is not an excuse to not work on a better constitution.
Not
> But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community is
> this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems necessary that
> we do.
Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an engineers
opinion:
Do not introduce a CoC.
Resisting to
On Friday, 26 October 2018 15:02:09 PDT Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> Anyway I think engineering and politics should be separated. On any level.
> Politics is extremly harmful to engineering. CoCs are always political.
You are correct.
But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the
> > I wish any one discussion about Qt software quality would have attracted so
> > much attention, passion and effort as this CoC topic.
>
> There are plenty of technical threads that have had more emails sent than
> this. Look at the ones about the buildsystem, for a recent example.
I
On Friday, 26 October 2018 12:28:42 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the
>
> first place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective,
> best left to humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be
> in a
On Friday, 26 October 2018 12:25:50 PDT Jason H wrote:
> Thiago,
>
> Here's a link that kinda puts it together:
> https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/
> (Scroll to "The Controversy" and the "rape apologist" Sage Sharp tweet)
I know of the controversy and find
> Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the text was written with
ill-
intent and let's ignore the taint that it would cause us just by adopting
it:
what's the worst that could happen? The interpretation of the CoC is left
to
the community that *is* part of the project, not the text's
On Friday, 26 October 2018 11:40:14 PDT NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> I have to disagree. As I see it: she has spent considerable amount of time
> drafting the exact text to allow her to bully projects.
> Have you spent as much time analyzing all of the potential pitfalls she may
> or may not have
On Friday, 26 October 2018 11:39:52 PDT Jason H wrote:
> How do we prevent that scenario, what is essentially a social
> Denial-of-Service (denial of community?) attack? If we adopt a
> Conenant-based language we have to consider this attack vector. It has
> already happened in other projects - it
Den sön 21 okt. 2018 kl 17:50 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo
:
>
> Hello,
>
> Il 21/10/18 16:15, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
> > I couldn't find a way to contact them.
>
> The best shot would be the std-discussion mailing list, I think.
>
> > In order to try out the unsafe usage you suggested in your
> I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the
first place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective,
best left to humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be
in a public forum, like a GitHub issue.
If mentioned situations best left to
Thiago,
Here's a link that kinda puts it together:
https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/ (Scroll
to "The Controversy" and the "rape apologist" Sage Sharp tweet)
I didn't realize this was a thing of "defeat". I have concerns, based on actual
events, that I want
On Friday, 26 October 2018 10:53:18 PDT Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> I wish any one discussion about Qt software quality would have attracted so
> much attention, passion and effort as this CoC topic.
There are plenty of technical threads that have had more emails sent than
this. Look at the ones
> Coraline's intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the text: is it
good?
I have to disagree. As I see it: she has spent considerable amount of time
drafting the exact text to allow her to bully projects.
Have you spent as much time analyzing all of the potential pitfalls she may
or may not
Putting my "red team" hat on for a moment (not a political color thing - a pen. test thing) this is how it will play out - maybe not for me personally - but someone in the community will express something that some (for lack of a better term) social justice warrior will take offense with to the
On Friday, 26 October 2018 09:48:11 PDT Jason H wrote:
> My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and
> solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it
> was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed
> [2] from
And we already see the budding sentiments to that exact tune:
(quote from Edward Welbourne)
>That sometimes folk have felt so intimidated that they give up on trying
> to make a contribution; and that, were potential worse conduct to cause
> distress to a contributor, we have no process in
I don't really care that their role, though that move takes gravitas.
I will never endorse a measure that encourages (and the CC does encourage) a witchhunt on the members of the community. It encourages by creating a metric of "maximum comfort" (or "least harmful") and that anything else is
I wish any one discussion about Qt software quality would have attracted so much
attention, passion and effort as this CoC topic.
--
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
Just to clarify: she sought to remove _maintainer_ of the project :) At
that point the guy was doing most of the work.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM Jason H wrote:
> My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and
> solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco.
My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and
solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it was
drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed [2]
from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong
On Friday, 26 October 2018 01:12:35 PDT Andy Nichols wrote:
> The way trust works in the Qt project so far is through the meritocracy so
> maybe a solution to any trust issues with enforcement can be solved in a
> similar way?
And on this point: yes, but not the code decision-making structure. I
On Friday, 26 October 2018 01:12:35 PDT Andy Nichols wrote:
> The details of this are tricky though because it depends a lot on trust
> (similarly the security list). Much of the concern with this proposal has
> to do with the potential for abuse, and rightly so. I'm not super happy
> with the
On Friday, 26 October 2018 00:44:57 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> I want to contribute: to accept that, we have to define "private time"
> meaning in a such public place as the web. Is personal blog page posting a
> private time?
The Mozilla text explains what it considers to be "Mozilla spaces",
On Thursday, 25 October 2018 23:55:09 PDT Elvis Stansvik wrote:
> Absolutely. And one thing I've when doing code reviews at work is that it's
> _very_ effective to not only point out problem areas of where things should
> be done differently, but also point out parts that are particularly good,
>
Am 25.10.2018 um 19:39 schrieb André Pönitz:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via Development wrote:
>> We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and this hasn't
>> led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against white
>> people
>> or
Some time lurker, first time poster. I'm an employee of the Qt Company,
Oslo office, since January 2018. I'm not an approver and as such do not
have voting rights. However, my favorite Austrian philosopher once said
"give back and change the world", so this is my way of giving back.
Let's see
Hello Aleksey
None of your questions looks like problems in Qt itself, so I've taken the
liberty of replying to the interest mailing list (discussion about *using*
Qt).
On Friday, 27 April 2018 10:11:52 PDT Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
> mydialog.obj:-1: error: LNK2001: unresolved external symbol
On Friday, 26 October 2018 09:18:21 CEST Ulf Hermann wrote:
> On 10/26/18 9:05 AM, Oliver Wolff wrote:
> > +1 from here as well. I also think that the proposed document (and
> > especially the "enforcement" part) is way too long
>
> The KDE CoC [1] does not specify any action to be taken when
On 26/10/2018 09:18, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> On 10/26/18 9:05 AM, Oliver Wolff wrote:
>> +1 from here as well. I also think that the proposed document (and
>> especially the "enforcement" part) is way too long
> The KDE CoC [1] does not specify any action to be taken when it's
> violated. That's the
Thank you Thiago for your well put thoughts. This is in line with my thinking
as well.
I'm glad we are finally at the point of having this discussion, as it's been
quite a long time since I hosted the Code of Conduct discussion at the 2017
contributors summit.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:39:45 +0200
André Pönitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via Development wrote:
> > We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and this hasn't
> > led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against white
>
Hello! :)
The CoC is a lie. From my point of view, some of the current intentions at
least.
I'm hesitating a bit, that I'm so loud. I'm doing this to prevent problems
at the community, trying to find bottlenecks and provide better solution
for us.
> The rest should be in the CoC text itself and
On 10/26/18 9:05 AM, Oliver Wolff wrote:
> +1 from here as well. I also think that the proposed document (and
> especially the "enforcement" part) is way too long
The KDE CoC [1] does not specify any action to be taken when it's
violated. That's the main reason why it seems shorter. If you only
+1 from here as well. I also think that the proposed document (and
especially the "enforcement" part) is way too long
On 25/10/2018 19:39, André Pönitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via Development wrote:
>> We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10
Even if I'm just living in the outskirts of the Qt Project (have for a long
time) I just have to say I wholeheartedly agree with Thiago in his thoughts
below.
One comment inline below.
Den fre 26 okt. 2018 07:14Thiago Macieira skrev:
> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 00:17:09 PDT Ulf Hermann
38 matches
Mail list logo
