On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:04:57AM +0200, Morgan Collett wrote: > [+cc: Mako] > > Selective quoting: > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You're on crack, Albert. > ... > > Albert, I'm not talking to you any more until you start making > sense.
As a side comment, I think this reference to crack is significantly different to the penultimate reference[1,2], although it might have been intended to (humourously?) echo that prior reference. > There is an alarming tendency to attack others on this project in > public, as if that gives some credibility to the argument. I don't see any such tendency, nor do I find what I've seen in the last few months alarming. Of course that's just me, and I'm "not no one" in this project. > Since our project is not only open but also for children, we should be > doubly motivated to treat each other with the respect that we want to > model for the children of the world. Would you say the same things if > you were standing in the middle of a classroom of kids? Laudable sentiment - with which I agree, but I worry that the tension with "get the right information out quickly and eliminate FUD" (with which I also agree) will be unproductive. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less[3], and I think such a code of conduct might be a solution to a problem this list doesn't have. I'm talking about devel@ specifically, though this probably goes (less well but still) for other lists. Often the people most in the know are those with the least time, and if they have to bend over backwards to not offend any/all questions, they'll respond (IMO) by communicating less, rather than "better" (according to the Code of Conduct guidelines). > I want to encourage ALL who see this email to read the Ubuntu code of > conduct (once again, http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct) and make > a personal commitment to abide by the spirit of it until such time as > we formally introduce one. I think everyone tries for this, as they know that if others find them to be like an idiot/prat, people they care about communicating with will pay less attention to them in the future. Perhaps just making people aware of it and that a person as involved as yourself considers it an important set of guidelines will get you/us most of the benefit that making people sign it would (not that I want to say that's what you're advocating, necessarily). > Regards > Morgan Martin 1. http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-May/013763.html 2. http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-May/014798.html 3. LAURENCE H. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 834 (2d ed. 1988) via http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200001/ai_n8887519/pg_18 quoted in http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200001/ai_n8887519 though there is a counterargument presented in the latter link (that's not applicable here, I think).
pgpaBQKXU6noK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
