[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, 4 Nov 2018 22:01:26 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
On 04/11/2018 10.15, Mark H Weaver wrote:
I've decided to withdraw my objections to the policy of requiring that
project participants agree to our CoC.
I though of Mark as the only "insider" who understood what my prime
issue with the CoC is. Now it seems that wasn't the case and surely
Here's a pledge: This shall be my last email about this specific issue,
on any Guix list, unless the text does get changed either in the
Covenant project or here, or if I'm asked a question.
Maybe someone here still has the patience to help me understand where my
interpretation would be unreasonable:
"In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our
project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone,
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
Contains the statement that "contributors" make a "pledge", i.e. give a
promise, as outlined in the rest of the sentence.
I take "contributors" to be the group of people who ever contributed
anything to the project. At the very least everyone who submitted code
that is part of the current tree.
Hence, I see included a claim that the very people who walked away
because of the CoC still make that pledge.
One may ask: who would object to pledging to not harass people,
regardless of who and how they are? Sure, but as I see it, the "pledge"
claim doesn't stop there. The first sentence establishes that "we" and
"our" is supposed to mean "maintainers" and "contributors". Because of
this, everything in "Our Standards" is an extension of the pledge. As is
"Scope", quite literally being the scope of the pledge.
I assume the core maintainers may update/edit the CoC as they see fit,
which in principal might change standards and scope. The CoC would then
include the claim that all past and current contributors now suddenly
pledged according to those new standards, perhaps with a wider scope. It
is their right to set the rules, but they should not imply that "we"
chose the rules.
Aside of that, a false statement about people is still a false
statement, even if it says that the people promised to be nice.
Off-list, I have been asked, more or less, to not take the word "pledge"
so seriously. Well, if I don't, at the very least, the promise regarding
a harassment-free environment falls out of the CoC, which surely is not
what anyone meant. If one assumes, not without reason, that the "we" of
the CoC doesn't actually exist", then what is left?
Anyway, I may still opt to (try to) contribute, as nobody would gain
anything from my withholding a package or whatever it may be.
thorwil's design for free software: