| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words |
| 5 |
is rather Patriot Act-ish. If this two-facedness reflects the intentions |
| 6 |
of people behind this semi-civilized means of minority-control, I'll |
| 7 |
pass on it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The wording of certain phrases in this 'code of conduct' is really |
| 10 |
dubious : specific enough to be used for any purpose and vague enough to |
| 11 |
hold none of those in control responsible. Take for example the |
| 12 |
'Repeated disruptive behaviors..' paragraph. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If you really want to make a serious attempt at a code of conduct, you |
| 15 |
keep it simple, you keep it clean. You let the community decide on |
| 16 |
contents and don't mix rules with punishments in one and the same |
| 17 |
document. If you guys really had understood the Ubuntu contract you |
| 18 |
would've never dropped this 'constitution' on -dev like this, especially |
| 19 |
not at this time (you know what I mean). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
- foser |
Archives