| 1 |
Aron Griffis wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:35:52PM CDT] |
| 2 |
> This should be shortened to say just what it means: Developers will |
| 3 |
> have more fun, be more productive, and create a better distribution if |
| 4 |
> we concentrate on the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Although I tend to agree with your comments about the quality of the |
| 7 |
writing, it's worth noting that much of this document was swiped from |
| 8 |
Ubuntu's code of conduct. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> This part makes sense, I think... though I don't see the point of |
| 11 |
> codifying it except to "throw the book" at the next Paludis. Frankly |
| 12 |
> I think Ciaran did nothing wrong to restrict distribution on a project |
| 13 |
> he didn't feel was ready for public consumption. It has always seemed |
| 14 |
> to me like the overreactions were the problem. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I think you're reading too much into that passage. It's from Ubuntu's |
| 17 |
code of conduct, and it is essentially stating (part of?) their social |
| 18 |
policy. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and |
| 21 |
> > stability threat to Gentoo. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Classic switching to the passive voice when the actor wishes to be |
| 24 |
> distanced from the action. WHO will view these behaviors as |
| 25 |
> a security and stability threat to Gentoo? Is this a statement the |
| 26 |
> existing developers are making? The foundation? Infra? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Here I'll certainly agree. In fact, I agree with the rest of your |
| 29 |
statements, so I can stop here. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-g2boojum- |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 36 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 37 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives