Hello all,
For anyone who is interested, I just wanted to point out that Slashdot has a
poll on the CoC fad:
https://slashdot.org/poll/3103/what-do-you-make-of-programming-languages-and-open-source-organizations-adopting-a-code-of-conduct
___
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:25:20PM +, Ulf Hermann wrote:
>> All the proposals for codes of conduct that I have seen so far mention
>> banning only as a last resort and have several less drastic measures
>> that should be applied before.
André Pönitz (29 October 2018 21:18) came back with
>
On Monday, 29 October 2018 13:36:30 PDT Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I feel you are using your position as chan op to kick him far too rare.
> But I'm not sure where to bring that up.
The 15-day ban expired yesterday, so he's back today.
Next one will be 45 days.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira
On 2018-10-28, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> But if it isn't spam, what gives the list moderator the right to intervene in
> something that he/she believes is abusive behaviour? Same thing about IRC: we
> do have one annoying person who does come along every now and then, but most
> of his messages
On Monday, 29 October 2018 13:18:53 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> Currently the Qt Project defines itself as "meritocratic,
> consensus-based community interested in Qt".
>
> After the suggested I fail to see how it can be called either.
We'd have to amend to say that unprofessional behaviour (as
Hello! I've tried to provide Code of Conduct based on Arch Linux CoC,
pasted here: https://paste.kde.org/pzdmvyi3t
Will try to send it to codereview later, feel free to do it instead of me
if it will be easier for you,
I'm going to spend some time to learn how to do it correctly
пн, 29 окт. 2018
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:25:20PM +, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> > But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> > exactly what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this
> > thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> > fear I'm not the
In a context of witch-hunts against even allegations of minimal harm,
NIkolai Marchenko (26 October 2018 20:17) wrote
>> 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
Hi all,
I would like to thank the people who have started this discussion. For me this
is a very positive thing and a step forward for the Qt community.
I really enjoy being part of the community. I want it to continue to be the
great group of people that it is today. And hopefully bigger, more
> From: "Volker Hilsheimer"
> To: "Jason H"
> Cc: "Lydia Pintscher" , "Qt development mailing list"
>
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> Hey Jason,
>
>
> You seem to assume that without a code of c
I've got your idea. My personal position for now is probably more like do
not promise things you can't keep.
I still have no doubts about Qt and KDE people professionalism.
I agree discrimination solving is very important idea. But I guess it
probably should be solved via some additional
is is why if we go with a CoC that can
> prescribe punishments, that it be explicit both in determination and
> punishment stages.
>
>
> *Not that I have anything against witches. I have several wiccan friends.
> Is the term "witch hunt" offensive? Can I get banned for us
On Monday, 29 October 2018 08:48:53 PDT Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> Asking? Maybe 1 or 2 times. (Sorry for not being super specific. There
> might be things I'm simply forgetting since it's been 10 years and
> there might be things that were not brought up to the whole committee
> but simply
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:11 PM Jason H wrote:
> Lydia,
>
> First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for your
> effort in it.
>
> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates exactly
> what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:53 AM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> Hi Lydia
>
> Thanks for chiming in.
>
> Note I asked about malicious request to the CWG, not legitimate ones. I mean
> baseless accusations, based on no actual fact, just attempts to smear someone
> or generate useless expediture of
On Monday, 29 October 2018 00:52:49 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> Talking about CC and KDE's CoC, it's not obvious for me how to perform
> politics, religion, race, etc -- harassment protection correctly at
> international digital community with provided rules.
> I'm not saying we don't need rules.
CoC that can prescribe
> punishments, that it be explicit both in determination and punishment stages.
>
>
> *Not that I have anything against witches. I have several wiccan friends. Is
> the term "witch hunt" offensive? Can I get banned for using that term now or
> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> exactly what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> fear I'm not the only one."? Would you say the project has created
> fear in you and
future?
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Lydia Pintscher"
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
> > And I'm pretty sure the K
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:53:01 +0100, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light.
I'm not too much interested in the topic of an CoC - not even in the
discussion about it - but
> If they want to be malicious, they'll find a way.
Opposite extreme is "who cares, let's accept something and sort it out on
the go later"
> Which promises in other CoCs do you find vulnerable?
Talking about CC and KDE's CoC, it's not obvious for me how to perform
politics, religion, race, etc
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 17:20:04 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
> the
> > charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges
> are
> > fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way.
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 16:53:01 PDT Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
>
> wrote:
> > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
> > times
> > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time
> > it
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 14:57:42 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> Note: I continue to think that KDE's CoC's text is written better and more
> clearly.
me too.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Thank you, Lydia and everyone!
I hope I'm not upsetting anyone. I could accept I'm taking too much
attention to the subject.
Qt project is very valuable for me as a user and a developer.
пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 2:53, Lydia Pintscher :
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
> Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
the
> charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges
are
> fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And if
the
> accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of times
> that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time it
> took them to give it the attention it was due.
I don't have an exact number but
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 13:18:02 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > The text is clear - actions will be taken to stop the discrimination.
> > That involves technical means (kick / ban) but also more social means
>
> It is not clear. Intruder could ask to ban some person pretending it's
>
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:51 PM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> I'm pretty sure their company HR would want to have a chat anyway.
>
Well, I'm not as sure as you, but I am hopeful.
> That's also a good reason to choose the KDE CoC, as both TQtC and KDAB
> recruit
> heavily from the KDE community and
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 2:08 PM Martin Smith wrote:
> No, it isn't a resolution. Not reacting to a complaint is no resolution.
Given the (current) structure of the community I take that as the offence
not carrying merit.
But even if "the community" does react to the alleged offense, how is
> So, as far as I see you have not identified any controversial
> sentences either
I've defined controversial sentences previously about proposed
harassment-free pledge part and KDE's protection from discrimination part.
> see people reporting on successes of KDE CoC and
> problems with kernel
On Saturday, 27 October 2018 13:40:42 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> > Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the
> > community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to
> > affect your employment.
>
> I agree. However my argument was that the
> > вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Tomasz Siekierda :
> > Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
> > controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
> > discussed?
> >
> > > The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be
> > >
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 08:36:17 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> That would be a valid reason in case there had been or we would
> expect to be unstoppable abusive behaviour.
>
> Most abusive behaviour on the mailing lists and IRC can be
> stopped by technical means, in exceptional cases like the
I agree my example is extremely contrived right now,
I just tried to show the idea.
Thank you, Elvis, for your answers.
> getting your patches rejected is not harassment
I agree that getting some patches rejected without any additional info is
not a harassment by default
I'm saying something
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 08:34:40AM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> And because we are online and spread all around the world, there is
> currently no way for us to stop and prevent abusive behavior.
That would be a valid reason in case there had been or we would
expect to be unstoppable abusive
Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 14:29 skrev Alexey Andreyev
:
>
> > [...] or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> > want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.
>
> I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
> but to show both have same problems.
>
> For me
> [...] or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.
I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
but to show both have same problems.
For me it's not about optimization right now. Is it possible to follow
Martin Smith
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:
>Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended
>party
>may feel
Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:34 skrev Alexey Andreyev
:
>
> Hello, Tomasz! :)
> Thank you for the question!
>
> Current draft based on CoC:
>
> > Our Pledge
> > ==
> > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> > as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project
I agree with you, Konstantin
вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 13:36, Konstantin Shegunov :
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith wrote:
>
>> >Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the
>> offended party
>> >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
>>
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith wrote:
> >Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the
> offended party
> >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
>
> HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately
> see that your
Hello, Tomasz! :)
Thank you for the question!
Current draft based on CoC:
> Our Pledge
> ==
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project pledge to make
> participation in our project and our community a
ch
acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority.
From: Konstantin Shegunov
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 9:04:12 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
On Sat, Oct 27, 201
prevent abusive behavior.We need a formal procedure
to enable that, and the CoC is that procedure.
From: André Pönitz
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 8:37:12 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: Bernhard Lindner; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Developmen
> The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be
> carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as
> rewrite.
Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:20 PM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> The answer to all of those questions needs to be "yes". Anything short of
> that
> means the CoC is powerless and just for show.
>
Which was my point exactly.
> Whether there's a termination of employment or not is out of scope, since
On Saturday, 27 October 2018 12:04:12 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> Say we adopt the CC (basically the proposed text) and imagine that the
> abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed heinous acts
> against a community member. As far as I can tell this is very unlikely, but
>
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith wrote:
> You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of
> conduct is that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.
>
Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended
party may feel just, but that's
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 05:34:30PM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> >Actions that are considered offenses by a society are typically mentioned
> >in its laws. If something is not forbidden by law it usually means that
> >there is no majority, let alone consensus in that society that this action
> >is
no laws, so the implication is we don't
consider any behavior an offense.
From: André Pönitz
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 7:25:39 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: Bernhard Lindner; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
On Sat,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 01:09:45PM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> >Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an
> >engineers
> >opinion:
> >Do not introduce a CoC.
>
> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor,
> what recourse does the victim
y Andreyev
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:21:10 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc: NIkolai “Zeks” Marchenko; Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> I agree not interacting is probably not a solution and your contribution
> with
“Zeks” Marchenko; Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
I agree not interacting is probably not a solution and your contribution
without other details is not an excuse.
But I think existing CoC have problems.
There are statements everywhere about
> From: NIkolai Marchenko
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 4:03:41 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc: Konstantin Shegunov; Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> I am yet to hear an answer about what is going
nt mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the person
mistreating is an active contributor.
Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person on
the project?
The edge case bei
a mistreated
> person can take the actions you have specified, and the result can be that
> the mistreatment, real or not, is not resolved.
>
>
> From: Konstantin Shegunov
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:48:49 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc:
, real or not, is not resolved.
From: Konstantin Shegunov
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:48:49 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:09 PM Martin Smith
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> w
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:09 PM Martin Smith wrote:
> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what
> recourse does the victim have?
>
1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor)
re doing now.
From: NIkolai Marchenko
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:17:09 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: priv...@bernhard-lindner.de; Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
Note that installing a conflict resolution authority
ated by another contributor, what
> recourse does the victim have?
>
> martin
>
>
> From: Development
> on behalf of Bernhard Lindner
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 12:39:40 AM
> To: development@qt-project.org
velopment on
behalf of Bernhard Lindner
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 12:39:40 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community is
> this one. We don't have to like discussing thi
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
> 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
ree with, but there are things in it that cross the
line for me. I think we can come to an agreement, but not with invoking the
Covenant in its current form.
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM
> From: "Thiago Macieira"
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re:
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
r projects - it is not a hypothetical.
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:17 PM
From: "NIkolai Marchenko"
To: jh...@gmx.com
Cc: "Christian Kandeler" , "Qt development mailing list"
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
And we already see the budding
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
t now
> strand will not ever contribute, the project is potentially harmed by
> missing out on a contributor. So now this issue can fall under the
> Covenant.
>
>
> How can we avoid witchhunts?
>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM
> *From:* "NIkolai Ma
ppens when the CC has been adopted by other projects.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
[2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
[3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:50 AM
> From: "Christia
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
by other
> projects.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
> [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
> [3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/
>
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:50 AM
> > From: "Christian
andeler"
> To: "development@qt-project.org"
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> 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:
> > &g
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
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
acieira
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 7:15 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 00:17:09 PDT Ulf Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> regarding our earlier discussions on a possible Code of Conduct, here
> as well as
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
On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 00:17:09 PDT Ulf Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> regarding our earlier discussions on a possible Code of Conduct, here as
> well as at the Contributors' Summit 2017, I've pushed a QUIP with the
> necessary rules and definitions:
>
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/243623
+1 for the KDE CoC from me as well.
Better written, clearer and to the point.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM 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
+1 this. I have no problems with the KDE CoC.
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM
> From: "André Pönitz"
> To: "Volker Krause"
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 20
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
