[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

From: Alex Griffin
Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:46:43 -0500

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, at 5:58 PM, Tonton wrote:
> There are limits though. The CC pledges you to abide by it's rules in
> relation to a certain community. Outside of this you are not pledged to it.
> but see below.

I know, but my point is that pledging yourself to the CoC is way different than 
just entering a space with established rules or norms that you should follow.

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The words themselves actually
> carry weight, and not just as rules to follow" How do they carry weight
> outside of setting rules? I'm a bit intrigued by how much weight you put in
> your words though. Do you never blow with the wind and dance with the stars
> because of this bondage to words?

The words "covenant" or "code" in this sense of the word are far more weighty 
than guidelines or even rules. Obviously I do speak casually most of the time 
but not when discussing statements of value.

> I too spent some time mulling that one over, but seeing as it
> asks you to pledge what I see as a low standard of communication I found no
> problem with it. The fact that it gives some of us pause is probably enough
> to warrant a change though.

It's not *just* a low standard of communication. The same sentence goes on to 
list a whole slew of categories you might use to put people into groups, which 
I don't agree with because it encourages treating people as members of a group 
rather than as individuals.

> Debians spend time
> encouraging positive behaviour, and alludes to process - it misses
> responsibility and properly talking about process.

Both documents barely address responsibility at all, and to properly address it 
would veer this discussion far down the philosophical rabbit hole.

> Debians also misses defining negative behaviour, which leaves it up to
> potential contributors to investigate what is allowed and not in the
> community. This is enough for some to not bother trying, and that is one of
> the important points. I (we) want to include them.

Behavior which causes conficts qualifies as *potentially* negative, to be 
negotiated as it occurs, except possibly in very serious cases.

> Alex Griffin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > In a sense, the Debian Code of Conduct is a code in name only. It's really
> > just 6 guidelines for kind communication and resolving conflicts
> > peacefully, and finally a method for seeking recourse either as a last
> > resort or in serious cases. The Contributor Covenant is actually a real
> > covenant.
> that's the same thing. :) I encourage reading the tao of pooh - this is
> completely off topic.

They're not the same thing at all. A covenant is something you pledge yourself 
to, a code in this sense of the word might otherwise be called a creed. A code 
might also just be a plain old list of rules, which the Debian CoC still 
wouldn't qualify for.

Alex Griffin

reply via email to

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