| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:51:42AM +0100, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 2 |
> From your draft: |
| 3 |
> >(note: most parts shamelessly stolen from Christel) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> In that case, showing only what differs from Christel's proposal would |
| 6 |
> have been a better way to present yours. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Sorry if that was unclear, that note didn't apply to the whole |
| 9 |
document but only the Code of Conduct itself (i did some rearranging |
| 10 |
putting the dos above the don'ts, i also added that violating the |
| 11 |
rules of a subforum also may be a breach of CoC). |
| 12 |
I could have written down my own version of this, but Christel's |
| 13 |
pretty much summed up what i would have written, too. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The rest of the document is not shamelessly stolen, and it's probably |
| 16 |
best to read both docs to see the difference. My key point is that i |
| 17 |
suggest a clear seperation between the moderators of the mailing lists |
| 18 |
and the people who actually enforce the CoC while the proctors do both |
| 19 |
things. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It also integrates existing moderation structures and only adds a new |
| 22 |
one for unmoderated mailing lists, reducing overlaps and potential |
| 23 |
conflicts of interest. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There is no new department for executing the CoC, but this |
| 26 |
responsibility rather lies with existing structures (Devrel or |
| 27 |
Userrel, depending on the status of the person violating CoC), which |
| 28 |
reduces redundancy and overlap once again. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I think that sums the most important differences up, if you need more |
| 31 |
information, please read post proposals. ;-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
cheers, |
| 34 |
Wernfried |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org |
| 38 |
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org |
| 39 |
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org |
Archives