| 1 |
On 15:21 Fri 11 Jul , Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> - From memory, the CoC was not intended to change *rels authority or |
| 3 |
> scope of action in any way at all. It was intended to document some |
| 4 |
> behaviours that anyone at all could use as a reference to remind other |
| 5 |
> participants in a medium that they we not behaving as other users had a |
| 6 |
> right to expect. I recall it was based on some of the concepts behind |
| 7 |
> freenodes catalyst idea. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> See dberkholzs' earlier ideas on CoC enforcement - anyone can do it. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There was no statute of limitations implied with the creation of the |
| 12 |
> CoC. While the CoC was being drafted, it was recognised that many CoC |
| 13 |
> breaches come from anger/emotion/misunderstandings and their writers |
| 14 |
> not sleeping on a post before they make it. |
| 15 |
> It was also recognised that *rel take in comparison to these |
| 16 |
> outbursts, a long time to act. The Proctors was created at the same |
| 17 |
> time as the CoC as a rapid reaction group to deal with rapidly |
| 18 |
> developing situations and calm things down, leaving *rel to deal with |
| 19 |
> the persistent offenders in slower time as they always had done. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> In short, the publishing of the CoC changed nothing, it only documented |
| 22 |
> something that had always been implied previously. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Note that the Forums mods and #gentoo channel ops had been enforcing |
| 25 |
> the standards in the CoC long before it was written. It follows that |
| 26 |
> the CoC is just documenting a part of what had been Gentoos' common |
| 27 |
> law. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Yes. =) Thank you for this well-constructed email, Roy. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Thanks, |
| 33 |
Donnie |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 36 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 37 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives