1 |
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> We had proctors project which failed up horribly, thats why I put something |
3 |
> else that does not have the stigma. |
4 |
|
5 |
Honestly, it seems to me that this failure is almost the entire reason |
6 |
that we're re-writing the thing, and I don't really see how the new |
7 |
version is any different from the old. I think the previous failure |
8 |
was in execution, not in concept (and I don't blame the Proctors |
9 |
themselves for that). |
10 |
|
11 |
My sense is that the real complaint has been that the old CoC wasn't |
12 |
enforced. Simply writing a new one won't change that. Now, it seems |
13 |
like Comrel has been working to change all of that. If so, would it |
14 |
make sense to give them time and only fix things if they're actually |
15 |
broken. |
16 |
|
17 |
So, why rewrite it, vs just improving the old policy? If we want to update |
18 |
the enforcement section of the old CoC to point to Comrel instead of |
19 |
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 we do want to continue with the new CoC I'd probably make it shorter. |
26 |
The old CoC says in bullets what the new one seems to say in sections. |
27 |
I know that is a bit ironic coming from me... |
28 |
|
29 |
Rich |