Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:31:37
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC) by Ulrich Mueller
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 >
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.
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.
18 If we want to update the enforcement section to point to Comrel
19 instead of Proctors that seems fine to me.
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.
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.
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...
32 Rich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct "Wulf C. Krueger" <wk@×××××××××××.de>