[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

From: Thorsten Wilms
Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 21:55:27 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1

On 28/10/2018 13.33, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless.


2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it
discourages contributions.

That's a somewhat limited and tame take on it ;)
You may count me as having contributed (little as it was) despite of the CC, definitively not because of it.

The association with the primary author makes some people think of the ... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of 2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short here, thus far from exact).

While one may say that the CC can and should be seen on its own, this background does turn it into ... unwelcoming language to some.

I take it for some it reads like an invitation to those with little to nothing better to do, to report perceived or even made-up misbehavior.

It has run-on sentences and ridiculous lists. Compare, and I can't even bring myself to quote from the start of the sentence in the far distance:

"... regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation."

With Debian's:

"No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community."

How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies ... and biology? Disability is listed, not (level of) ability. Body size couldn't be be subsumed by (personal (what other kind could it be?)) appearance? Trying so hard to be political correct, but than using the loaded term "race".

This one is too "funny":
"The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident."

So if Jim reports that Jane threatened him to foobar his baz, then the project team has to contact Jane, but must keep it secret that Jim reported the issue? While being fair to Jane? Maybe such threats are illegal in the countries of both, maybe it's actually one country and police and the judicature might get involved?

If the reporter is a 3rd party, sure, but even then an accused person may express anger towards the potential victim, via assuming that the potential victim reported personally.

Now there may be cases where protecting a reporter is important and just, but this "protecting any accuser, always" stance seems problematic.

3. GKCG seems to be inadequate in the opinion of the maintainers, as:
a. it does not define acceptable behaviour, and
b. it does not define processes.

My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill.

I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG,
but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined.

Do you think this can/should be done?
Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall?

Yes and yes, though I'm not sure how much of a GKCG-alike it should become, as I think it's important to have something short that people can read and agree with (or not).

Thorsten Wilms

thorwil's design for free software:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]