1 |
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500 |
2 |
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> [...] The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to |
5 |
> speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and |
6 |
> that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable |
7 |
> distrust of devrel, which historically made it hard for them to |
8 |
> enforce it. My belief is that "developer buy-in" would make all of |
9 |
> the difference in how effective a code of conduct would be. |
10 |
|
11 |
I think "developer buy-in" is absolutely _critical_ for this to work. |
12 |
Without it, the exercise will create more unnecessary ante between |
13 |
devrel and the rest of devs, and it'll be much less successful, even |
14 |
largely a waste of time. |
15 |
|
16 |
For the record, 3 calendar days for comment is a ridiculously small |
17 |
amount of time to achieve this. You could put something in place |
18 |
rapidly, if you want to be seen to be responding to the negative press |
19 |
in various quarters, but it must be on the explicit understanding that |
20 |
the CoC will be developed properly over a longer period of time. |
21 |
|
22 |
Short timescale notwithstanding, here are my comments on the document |
23 |
as a whole. I don't have time to be soft and fluffy over this, so |
24 |
forgive me if it comes across too strong. |
25 |
|
26 |
I agree firmly with Grant, that the doc should be positive in its |
27 |
wording throughout. I sent a critique of the old etiquette guide to |
28 |
devrel last week making exactly this point, however the new CoC still |
29 |
weighs in first with negatives and punishments. This is what happens |
30 |
when the document is drafted rapidly in response to, for want of a |
31 |
better phrase, a crisis in communications. |
32 |
|
33 |
The emphasis should on the positive and on empowerment, not on |
34 |
restriction and subjugation. For example, I'd start the document with |
35 |
something like (written previously as a suggestion for the etiquette |
36 |
guide): |
37 |
|
38 |
Developers are representatives of Gentoo; your behaviour as a |
39 |
developer reflects on Gentoo as a whole. These simple etiquette |
40 |
guidelines are here to help you to ensure your own behaviour is a |
41 |
positive asset to the Gentoo project. |
42 |
|
43 |
and I'd have statements like: |
44 |
|
45 |
Keep all your communications polite and focused on the technical |
46 |
discussion at hand. If a respondent is rude, obnoxious, offensive or |
47 |
annoys you in any way, choose to walk away rather than waste your |
48 |
time responding to it. |
49 |
|
50 |
As far as punishments are concerned, I wouldn't focus on specifics, but |
51 |
on the general aim: |
52 |
|
53 |
The elected proctors have overall responsibility for ensuring good |
54 |
standards of behaviour in all Gentoo fora (mailing lists, IRC, |
55 |
forums etc). They are tasked with taking appropriate action should |
56 |
problems arise. |
57 |
|
58 |
(could equally be 'proctors appointed by the elected council') |
59 |
|
60 |
Well, that's about all I can manage for now - don't expect a full |
61 |
critique in such a short timescale... |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Kevin F. Quinn |