[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guideli

From: Mark H Weaver
Subject: Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:04:30 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Hi Ludovic,

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> skribis:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:41:53PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote:
>>> I suggest to end this thread. HiPhish, come and discuss your points at
>>> FOSDEM. We'll set up a working group for those who care about these
>>> things.
>> I agree. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam across the internet,
>> and even offline, and we are not going to achieve a breakthrough here on
>> the Guix mailing list.
> +1.

I'm unable to travel to FOSDEM this year, so moving the discussion there
would effectively exclude me from participating in it.

> Furthermore, this project, like any other, has its license, its rules,
> etc.  Of course we can discuss these things together, it’s what makes a
> project healthy.


> However, when joining the project, one agrees to follow these rules

While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, and I
support the practice of enforcing those policies through our control
over our infrastructure and communications channels, I strongly oppose
requiring or presuming that all participants "agree" with our policies,
which I take to mean "declaring that they share the same opinions and

Some participants may disagree with our policies, and that's okay.
We don't need their agreement to enforce our policies.

Forcing people to declare their agreement with our policies as a
prerequisite for participation, or worse, _presuming_ that they agree
based on their having sent a patch or posted a message, is needlessly
alienating to those who don't share our views.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it's important for us to
obtain "agreement" with our policies from all participants.

It would be like a restaurant asking every customer to sign an agreement
before entering, forcing them to agree in advance to a list of rules,
e.g. that they won't harass the other customers.  There's no need for
it, and it's needlessly alienating.  It's more than enough to simply
have a list of rules posted in public view, and to enforce the rules as
the need arises.


reply via email to

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