Hi Myrle, > On Jul 21, 2019, at 3:42 PM, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:59 PM Craig Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd also like to comment on "Comment can reasonably be expected to provoke >> an angry response from a significant portion of the people on the list. ". >> >> I described this in else-thread as "offensive, ad hominem, triggering". So >> it's not just angry but offended, scared, disgusted. Such as descriptions >> of horrible acts committed by (euphemistically) war criminals, perverts, >> and human rights abusers. >> >> Is this a different category from "provoke anger" or should it all be >> rolled into one? >> > > I'm not sure. The specific examples you name are probably covered by the > ASF CoC. And I was planning on integrating point 5 of the Apache Coc ( > https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html) into the > moderation guidelines.
These are exhaustive (and exhausting to read) but are examples of what I had in mind. > But perhaps you are thinking beyond that? Do you > have any examples that wouldn't be covered by the CoC (and that you don't > think should be added to the CoC)? What I am thinking is that a moderator should be able to use the moderation guidelines alone to decide on the disposition of a message, and not need to refer to another document (CoC) to do the work. This is especially true if we eventually put tooling into place where we should have the tooling option to reject CoC violations as well. I expect that we (you) can summarize point 5 for our moderation tooling. > > In short: do you think anything beyond point 5 is necessary? Nope; just a summary will do it for me. Thanks, Craig > > Best, > Myrle Craig L Russell [email protected]
