Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo

[Richard Brown]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> What exactly do previous examples have to do with us saying that our
> past efforts didn't work and our trying to come up with a *new* way of
> doing these things to not repeat past problems/mistakes?
>
> Let me just clarify this.
>
> We don't care how things were done in the past.  We are looking
> *forward* and trying to come up with the best solution from here on out.
>

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying "things" didn't work in
the past, but these "things", and by inference the reasons why they
happened the way they did, have no relevance to your plans to improve
"things"?

> *sigh*
>
> I wasn't aware that I would have to spell out everything.  How about
> this, then?
>
> EVERYTHING with gentoo.org or #gentoo-* in it?  Is that good enough?
>
> (Looking forward to the day when we don't have to be so damned pedantic
> in everything that we write.)

Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes
that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council
member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC is unclear?
In your original reply, you didn't exactly exude confidence when you
said "I'm pretty sure this is the stance we're taking on it."

If jaervosz feels the policy is unclear, when would it have been
appropriate for him to ask for clarification? After the council has
declared it law, or after he's received his first warning?

Finally, I'm struggling to see the respect in your replies to a
jaervosz, something the new CoC the council are about to order us to
follow suggests is an integral part of acceptable behaviour when
disagreeing with or challenging someone.

Apologies for length,

--
Richard Brown





-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list