1 |
Hi List, |
2 |
|
3 |
The following mail has been written on Tuesday before alot of the recent |
4 |
discussions. It hasn't been changed except for three passages, which I left |
5 |
out (marked with "[...]") which had no actual content, and don't make sense |
6 |
to be send to the list, but only to the actual addressee, who currently is |
7 |
unavailable. |
8 |
It is now "mirrored" here, to make sure it has a chance to be heared as input |
9 |
for the voting by the council, which will be soon today. |
10 |
Please note all of it is subjective of course, you might have a different |
11 |
point of view therefore. |
12 |
Additionally, please note English is _not_ my native language. |
13 |
Sorry for any inconvenience. |
14 |
|
15 |
----------------------------- |
16 |
|
17 |
[...] |
18 |
> Hiya all, |
19 |
> |
20 |
> As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting |
21 |
> given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for |
22 |
> Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this |
23 |
> proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml |
24 |
> comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in |
27 |
> order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at |
28 |
> 2100UTC. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this |
31 |
> stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into |
32 |
> English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look |
33 |
> prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and |
34 |
> marienz for being sane and reading it over. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and |
37 |
> answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Christelx |
40 |
|
41 |
Hey, ahm - just read over it, and here is a list of things that i personally |
42 |
would change. |
43 |
[...] The majority is wording or slight changes only [...] |
44 |
I marked original versions with double quotes, those that I'd change without |
45 |
touching content with A and where i'd (mostly slightly only) change content |
46 |
with X. Notes are in brakets. |
47 |
Everything is in the order in which it appears in the current draft. |
48 |
|
49 |
X: I'd add a friendly note at the beginning, that everyone who has problems |
50 |
understanding the code can email xyz for help or ask #-userrel or so. |
51 |
A: Gentoo prides itself on being a community driven distribution. |
52 |
Everything we do is done with the best interest of the community at heart. |
53 |
[Simplifies language (It should be as easy to understand it as possible.), |
54 |
removes dublication of "we do"] |
55 |
X: We don't like making rules, but unfortunately with a community of this size |
56 |
it's necessary to have some ground rules firmly in place. |
57 |
["in order for us to keep doing what we have been doing." isnt this clear? If |
58 |
it should be kept in, i'd use a second sentence like 'This is to keep work |
59 |
going on smoothly.' or ', in order to keep work going on.', "to keep doing |
60 |
what we have been doing" sounds somewhat bumpy] |
61 |
A: We want these rules to be completely transparent, consistently enforced and |
62 |
followed. [avoids numbers within the text, removes the "and" dublication.] |
63 |
X: By empowering people, we try to protect as many community members as |
64 |
possible from being offended or otherwise unhappy with the community. |
65 |
[I tried for a more positive wording of the same by not directly stating that |
66 |
it wont work (perfectly) anyway, yet i lost the part of avoiding "destructive |
67 |
behaviours or attitudes" without intention, although this was said in the |
68 |
sentence before yet, so it can maybe be left out without real effects - i |
69 |
searched for a way not to leave it out, i just couldnt find a nice one] |
70 |
A: "something is OK to post" --> 'okay to post' [more "formal"] |
71 |
even better would be "acceptable" to comply with the headline and wording |
72 |
used later on. however, a mail that is "okay" is better than one thats |
73 |
only "accepptable" so one might as well stick to 'okay' for that purpose. |
74 |
"it isn't, and" --> 'it isn't and' [is a comma needed here? am unsure.] |
75 |
"in any one thread." --> 'in this thread' or 'in the thread' |
76 |
"A comment made in" --> 'A comment written in' |
77 |
"consequences that you" --> 'consequences which you' |
78 |
X: Did you consider writing about the acceptable behaviour first? |
79 |
A: 'We do not take the decision to suspend or ban someone lightly |
80 |
[sounds better?] |
81 |
X: 'but sometimes it is neccessary.' or better 'however it is neccessary |
82 |
sometimes.' |
83 |
[ it would have "to happen" too, if you were sadists :-) no seriously, it |
84 |
reads better if something is needed, instead of "having to happen" in a way i |
85 |
cant quite explain ] |
86 |
A: removing "Below is a list of things that could get your access suspended." |
87 |
shouldnt change a thing, since "Things that could get you banned/suspended |
88 |
from [...]" is still there. |
89 |
"Please keep in mind that" might be removeable too (not the rest of the |
90 |
sentence of course.) "keep in mind that" it is a not-very-formal construction |
91 |
(which does not mean it is slang or sth of course, it just isnt very formal) |
92 |
"subjective one, and is based" --> ', which is based' |
93 |
X: I'd remove the ever in "you ever have questions" as "ever" refers to |
94 |
eternity in a way in that scope, thus the writer is more open to answering |
95 |
questions, if this "ever" is not there. difficult to explain, do you |
96 |
understand what i mean? |
97 |
I would even consider writing 'If you have a question about our decisions" |
98 |
as one question is of course enough to ask. |
99 |
"to talk to us" --> 'to ask us' since we talk about questions |
100 |
You might consider adding who exactly "us" is? userrel? all of gentoo? |
101 |
proctors? all of them? the one who did xyz? not anyone who didnt? |
102 |
X: You might, if it applies, add that the list of bad things is in no |
103 |
particular oder and doesnt claim to be complete. |
104 |
A: "Things that could get you" --> 'These things could get you' |
105 |
["that" is always not-very-good style] |
106 |
"Usually, you" --> 'Usually you' [comma not needed here] |
107 |
"wouldn't" --> 'will not' |
108 |
"warning, but" --> "warning. Nevertheless" |
109 |
"pretty serious"; pretty primarily means "nice", and only in a colloquial |
110 |
context it can be used as "very" "large" "susbstantial" etc. and thus should |
111 |
be replaced. |
112 |
"we take each" --> 'we consider each' [take is one of those universal words |
113 |
like "put", consider is a more narrow word, thus better here i'd say] |
114 |
"basis and make" --> "basis to make" ['and' isnt a nice word, everyone uses |
115 |
it too often ] |
116 |
I would write "to make sure we always reached a consensus for our decision." |
117 |
[ it is 'your' decision, thus not any decision, thus no "whatever". 'our |
118 |
decision' is still completely open regarding its content. also "whatever" is |
119 |
less formal anyway i think ] |
120 |
same applies to "have a consensus". 'reaching one' sounds better, and |
121 |
stresses it a bit more. the "we reach" at the end isnt needed anymore if you |
122 |
use 'our' as this makes clear it's yours. |
123 |
X: did you also consider 'disinformation'? disinformation is wrong _on |
124 |
purpose_ as it tries to deceive, while "misinformation" is wider, and can |
125 |
also be used if it was wrong by accident. |
126 |
A: "It is possible to challenge someone (respectfully, of course), in a way |
127 |
that empowers without being judgemental." I do not understand the meaning of |
128 |
this sentence. did you mean 'that encourages' instead of empoweres? I dont |
129 |
get it. anyway, i would remove the brakets: 'someone respectfully, in' |
130 |
[brakets mark additional or optional things, and the "of course" reverses |
131 |
that. it is like sqrt(5^2) = 5 in a way (it is both plus and mines 5, i |
132 |
know - ignore that for a second)] |
133 |
A: "Posting/participating" --> 'Participating' [If you write "Drive/Move to" |
134 |
you make the first one unneccessary, as the 2nd word is no synonym but has a |
135 |
wider meaning and thus removes the narrowing of the 1st one anyway...] |
136 |
X: I would remove "rather than to tactfully share information." as the code |
137 |
should, afaict now, apply to virtually everything, even a nonsense discussion |
138 |
on irc/forums that is there just for fun. Imagine "tactfully sharing |
139 |
information" in a thread titled "post you favourite jokes here!" or "do you |
140 |
like xyz?" (remember we got the "off the wall" section in the forums, the |
141 |
official off-topic ground) |
142 |
X: Why do you consider courteousness being something someone has to earn, has |
143 |
to work for? I'd just remove this passage. You should be courteous to people |
144 |
you never saw before, too. for instance if you jostle someone, or as for the |
145 |
time. [those "you"s are not you, christel personally, but anyone] |
146 |
And even if you just got attacked, and thus in your eyes this person now |
147 |
wouldnt deserve your tactfullness anymore, it shouldnt be allowed not to be |
148 |
impolite because of this as exactly the "fighting back" is what makes |
149 |
flamewars start. |
150 |
therefore it would rather write something like "Always be courteous. Stick to |
151 |
your tactfullness even if someone was impolite agains you. Do not 'fight |
152 |
back'." |
153 |
A: for consistency "Giving accurate information" --> 'Give ...' [everything is |
154 |
in imperative] |
155 |
"The operative word here is RESPECTFULLY." shows the former sentence is |
156 |
unclear. why dont you use 'Challenging or disagree with other members |
157 |
respectfully.' [challenge at the beginning, as it is bad to start a sentence |
158 |
with imperative "disagree" and this way the bumpy construction "with or" is |
159 |
avoided, thus the preposition is not followed by a conjunction, which isnt |
160 |
nice] |
161 |
"Using the" --> 'Use the' (same as Giving --> give) |
162 |
You used plural "bug reports and idle chatter" but singular "discussion", |
163 |
which i'd change to 'discussions about' ... 'probably do not'. |
164 |
Remove "when made", it isnt needed, and "make" is one of those universal |
165 |
words like take, too. |
166 |
"Noone" --> "No one" |
167 |
"you will get" --> "you might get" [I dont want to claim there are people who |
168 |
succeeded in never getting anything wrong, yet it is more polite that way] |
169 |
"Don't" --> "Do not" stresses the not, is more formal. |
170 |
I'd remove "also" and "any" in "They will also be watching many of the public |
171 |
fora for any problems". ["Also" besides what else? they only watch public |
172 |
fora. and "any" just isnt needed, and sounds better without.] |
173 |
"can not" --> "cannot" |
174 |
"The proctors will, in the first instance, attempt" ---> 'In the first |
175 |
instance, the proctors will attempt' [besides, is it "the proctors" |
176 |
or "proctors" only, in that case?] |
177 |
Did you consider changing "appropriate" to 'needed'? |
178 |
You set up your rules hoping for common sense - anyway one could abuse "If |
179 |
this does not produce results" to argue that there were results: It got even |
180 |
worse. Changing that to 'If this does not produce acceptable results' will |
181 |
prevent this. |
182 |
"there are various options open to the proctors, including" --> 'the proctors |
183 |
have various options, including:' [easier to read, sticks closer to the |
184 |
simplest of all, the subject-verb-object sentence (it almost is one)] |
185 |
The "open" is ugly and not needed in my changed word order, i therefore left |
186 |
it out. Note that i used a colon, to start the enumeration and shorten the |
187 |
sentence. |
188 |
X: "Any action of this sort will require consensus from at least three |
189 |
proctors." --> 'Any action of this sort requires documented consensus of at |
190 |
least three proctors.' [consider adding 'documented' here, maybe. plus i |
191 |
changed 'will require' to 'requires' because as soon as this is enforced, it |
192 |
is not a 'will' anymore, plus it is "the opinion of us" and thus |
193 |
the "consensus of three proctors, not form - or am i wrong with that?] |
194 |
A: "Remember, the moment you participate in a public discussion on the Gentoo |
195 |
fora, you have made yourself a representative of the Gentoo community." --> |
196 |
'When you participate in a public discussion on the Gentoo fora, you |
197 |
represent the Gentoo community.' [the moment == when, i dont make myself one, |
198 |
but i automagically become a part of it, i'd use making here if that was the |
199 |
primary aim only i think. plus i am not a representitive of it, like the |
200 |
userreps are. representitives are elected or so - i rather represent it, |
201 |
there is a difference] |
202 |
Feel free to ask is something is unclear, of course. |
203 |
|
204 |
|
205 |
Ciao, |
206 |
|
207 |
Daniel |
208 |
|
209 |
P.S.: The mail got quite long, i know. sorry for that, didnt manage to get it |
210 |
shorter. |
211 |
-- |
212 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |