Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: expose@×××××××××××.net
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:53:45
Message-Id: 200703151949.23407.expose@luftgetrock.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo by Christel Dahlskjaer
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