lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by address@hidden)


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by address@hidden)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 21:45:56 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

James Lowe <address@hidden> writes:

> On 06/02/2020 15:37, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
>>>> you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
>>>> offending.
>>> That's it.
>> But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time
>> until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge.
>
> That is not your responsibility.

It's been my experience that patching a problem close to its source
tends to be most effective.

I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
message.  Appended manually here: I still have to check how to make this
automatic.

>> It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen
>> leading to the snake pit".  But it's still a kitchen layout that may
>> come unexpected.
>>
> Goodness gracious!
>
> Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that
> paragraph above is just so bloody soul destroying?
>
> I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have
> no say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be
> told what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be
> civil, whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about.
>
> This is just 'Thought Police' by a different name or at the very least
> an exercise in tedious moral relativism.

A Code of Conduct attempts to address a problem.  In the version we have
here, it provides a promise of recourse, enforcement and closure for
those negatively affected by someone's behavior.  That is a defensible
approach for deliberate offenses.  In my own case, it would either
ultimately lead to my removal, or the promise of recourse, enforcement
and closure would be hollow.  If changing myself was a workable option,
I'd bloody have brought this personality back to the store and gotten
myself a properly functioning one, sometime these last 50+ years.

Now at least we don't have to deal with the problem of myself being
intolerable specifically to demographic minorities.

I have siblings.  When the first of them presented future in-laws to the
rest of the family, there was a bit of a problem.  We called each other
names, tried to punch one another in passing, things like that.  The
in-laws thought we were moments before bringing out the knives and
couldn't understand what triggered the crisis.  While we were just
socialising.  It took some time to understand the problem and a lot more
time to ameliorate it, partly by changes in behavior, partly by others
learning to interpret it.

This kind of insider/outsider behavior difference does not work well for
open groups.  I appreciate the company of people who know to read me,
but it just cannot be taken for granted.

> Wow.. I didn't quite realise how opposed I was to CoCs until now and
> I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because
> "...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because
> ... "...well it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real
> justification.
>
> Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

Well, one can make them more robust, and that may be worth thinking
about.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies are known to frequently cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".



reply via email to

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