| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'd like to resume the discussion already now, before the meeting. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I guess my question is what is wrong with the current CoC? It seems |
| 6 |
like the new CoC basically says the same stuff in a different way, and |
| 7 |
is a bit awkward (granted, I'm sure the first draft of the original |
| 8 |
CoC was as well). Why take time to basically re-invent a new CoC |
| 9 |
rather than just tweak the existing one, assuming there is anything |
| 10 |
that needs tweaking. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
My sense is that the real complaint has been that the old CoC wasn't |
| 13 |
enforced. Simply writing a new one won't change that. Now, it seems |
| 14 |
like Comrel has been working to change all of that. If so, would it |
| 15 |
make sense to give them time and only fix things if they're actually |
| 16 |
broken. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If we want to update the enforcement section to point to Comrel |
| 19 |
instead of Proctors that seems fine to me. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think the new CoC is well-intended, and it could very well be made |
| 22 |
into a good policy. I just don't see how it really improves |
| 23 |
anything. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If somebody wants to point to some theme in the new CoC that is a big |
| 26 |
improvement over the old one I'm all ears. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If we do change the CoC I'd probably make it shorter. The old CoC |
| 29 |
says in bullets what the new one seems to say in sections. I know |
| 30 |
that is a bit ironic coming from me... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives