Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
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 11:35:22
Message-Id: CAGfcS_n-3h6u3Hiqf+k03+B7aQbaXqD=QGO_MEhyw7086bjAiQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC) by "Tomáš Chvátal"
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

Replies