[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guideli
Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 15:30:47 +0100
I think "agree" in this context means to agree to follow the rules of that
setting, not necessarily that you endorse those rules in general. For example,
if you are a smoker in a non-smoking area you agree not to smoke while in that
area, but you do not agree not to smoke at all. Or if you are in a vegan
restaurant you will agree to eat vegan, but that does not make you actually a
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 10:15:58 CET Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I've decided to withdraw my objections to the policy of requiring that
> project participants agree to our CoC.
> I read the language of the CoC again more carefully, looking to produce
> a realistic scenario of a person with legitimate but unpopular political
> views being discriminated against by this requirement. Ultimately, I
> failed to find any realistic example that I wish to defend.
> I no longer believe that agreeing to our CoC implies declaring agreement
> with it. I think I jumped to conclusions too quickly here, partly based
> on an unusually strong interpretation of the word "agree".
> I've also been worrying about possible abuses that I now suspect (hope?)
> would be unlikely to hold up in a court. For example, I worried that if
> participation in the project is taken to imply agreement with our CoC,
> that by a natural extrapolation, someone who contributes a single fix
> but is otherwise uninvolved with the project could be legally held to be
> bound by our CoC. That's thinking like a mathematician, where I should
> have been trying to think like a lawyer.
> So, I'm withdrawing my objections. Sorry for the stress.