On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alexander Shorin" <[email protected]> >> >> > Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be >> polite.": >> >> Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from >> people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread >> as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.) >> >> Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming >> community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't >> be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some >> people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage >> people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that >> I won't bring to bear on this list. >> >> This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still >> harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness. >> > > This question always raised the question about who is right on naming > thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by > laws will solve that you're wrong. However only politeness and respect of > the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even though > who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of > the other made as a rule, a conduct. Empathy is too emotionally charged and > doesn't take in consideration the ego (in its pure definition) of each > parts. It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the > differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about > having people at the same level. > > There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world" > from Huxkley. This paper also summarise it: > huxley of course... > > P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page. >> >> See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer >> conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places -- >> and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding. >> >> I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it >> will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a >> position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think >> polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties >> CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be >> explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list >> proves insufficient we need to grow it over time. >> >> -Joan >> > > > A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about having > by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them. > Most of the time by only using a Coc as a way to define the social > agreement and a list of guidelines aside on how to manage discussions and > other stuff related to the project. Most of the time in the form of an > extensive contributing document. > I wanted to say "most of the discussions" , all in the communities i am a member (even the PSF) or i joined. - benoit
