That is why the proposal that I just put on the table explicitly talks only of official GNOME forums of communication which is, incidentally, exactly like a terms of service.
2009/11/25 john palmieri <john.j5.palmi...@gmail.com> > I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out of > GNOME, or gets you shunned. A Terms of Service for hosted sites which gets > your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if it is very > narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc. However as we move into > the realm of who offended who it gets dicey and predicated on the sentiments > of who is making the final call. We've survived the oGalaxys and Bowie > Poags of the past and I don't think I have seen any worse conduct. I'm > defering to the board if they really feel they need an enshrined document > but there should be a vote on the final draft if we go in this direction. > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot <pl...@ploum.net> wrote: > >> >> I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated. >> >> How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we >> spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A. >> >> How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit >> every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case? Answer is >> B. >> >> I expect A << B by at least one order of magnitude. >> >> What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are offended by >> the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but it's a >> problem. A rare one but still a problem. >> What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on that >> particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect. >> >> There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo. This was >> never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by case basis. >> Anyway, there are always people offended by everything. >> >> >> When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start developing a >> framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has already been >> done, it's called J2EE) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Lionel >> >> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters >> <stormy.pet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman <m...@banu.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I think this is taking it too far. The "Code of Conduct" being >> >> presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it >> >> policy. The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and >> >> cannot say/do in public. >> >> >> > >> > We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME, >> > blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and >> > I think we can (and >> > do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if >> someone >> > started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them. >> > >> > (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most public >> places >> > there are laws you have to follow.) >> > >> > Stormy >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-list mailing list >> foundation-list@gnome.org >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >> > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > >
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
