On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 10:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:08 AM, Michael Gratton <m...@vee.net> wrote: > > This has already been covered in the original proposal under > > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, > > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the > > people > > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These > > are > > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, > > and > > it is the project that loses out in the end. > > You've yet to provide any evidence for this. We're asking for > evidence > because it is *extremely* difficult to believe. You're losing us > here. > > > To address some of your points directly however, this censorship > > in > > as much as the CoC is censorship, and as much as you already > > self-censor when choosing names for things in projects you > > participate in. That is to say, not actually censorship at all. In > > fact, you can see this proposal as simply aiming to extend the CoC > > to > > our documentation, API, and development infrastructure. > > Michael, the events CoC is a reasonable CoC written by reasonable > people designed to ensure we treat each other reasonably well. It > has > broad support -- perhaps not universal, but at least pretty broad -- > from the GNOME community because we mostly all agree it is > reasonable.
Our code of conduct isn't a direct descendant of the contributor covenant, but it's still widely used in our community, including the Linux kernel: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/blob/release/static/adopters.csv and its master branch name was changed: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-424896149 I quote so you don't have to read the issue that's of similar tone to this thread: " The main branch is now called 'release'. Thank you for pointing this out. (And I wish that GIthub would make something like this the default.) " > What you're proposing is not reasonable. It's really not. There's no > way you're going to convince the community that we should avoid > commonly-used words that are generally considered inoffensive, just > because a small minority might feel otherwise Re-read this sentence a bunch of times, it's pretty much the opposite of what our community stands for. Offensiveness isn't a popularity contest. > (which, in this case, is > hard to believe, but I suppose people are not always reasonable). This is uncalled for. > If you want to help make the GNOME community more inclusive in a > more > productive way, you could, for example, work on generalizing the > events > CoC to apply to all GNOME community interactions, like this mailing > list, rather than just specific in-person events. I would suspect > that > would have broad support. That's already being worked though, isn't it? I don't see why we can't work on both. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
