> And btw, we have had a clear majority in favour of adding a CoC at the Contributor Summit
It seems very wrong to make such decisions at conventions where only a small part of the contributors can participate. Especially for something as big and divisive On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:52 PM Rafael Roquetto <raf...@roquetto.com> wrote: > I understand this has already been set in stone, and I am not here in > the hopes this will change. However, I do feel like I should voice my > own humble opinion - perhaps it can be useful, or maybe not... > > I would like to start by saying I fully agree with Shawn: what exactly > are we trying to fix? That is not to say problems never happened, but > these things have side effects - sometimes the most unintended ones. As > C++ programmers, we should know well that unintended side-effects > steaming from well-intentioned constructs are no exception (pun intended). > > So I will go back to my question: what is it we are trying to solve? Or > rather, what is it that happened, that we are trying to prevent from > happening again? There will always be lunatics, and a CoC won't stop > them. Perhaps it will improve things... but... perhaps it will do more > harm than good. Or is it proven technology? > > Which brings to my second point, a very personal one: more or less in > line with what Jason said, programming *to me* has always been about > bits and bytes, about the code, about computers, about being able to > make things appear on the screen and to control the machine. Free > Software has been about.... free software and that's it. I find it > extremely off-putting to see that the Qt project is embarking in this > sort of politics - again, if things were broken and a CoC could fix > them, I would be more than happy to join the train, but that doesn't > seem to be the case. At least from my humble perspective. > > During all these years contributing to Qt I have encountered many times > strong criticism in gerrit - some people were very harsh or *seemingly* > rude - or that was what I thought, until I realized that: 1) it was just > their modus operandi; 2) at the end of the day, their comments made > sense and improved my code; 3) they were not butt hurt when roles were > reversed. > > Communication/criticism just like this is unambiguously straightforward > and I *personally* prefer it this way. Unfortunately I could not make it > to the QtCS, but had I been there, I would have voted against the CoC, > for sure. I hate to see politics tainting the project. But, that is my > view, and in spite of that, I do hope that in the end I am wrong and > that the CoC is another step on the right direction. Let's remain > positive and hope it won't even be necessary to invoke it after all, and > that respect and common-sense shall prevail. > > > - Rafael > > PS: if you have read this far (sorry!), you may also be interested in > donating a tad more of your time and help with reviewing this > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/241598/ > > ;) > > > On 10/25/18 5:58 PM, Lars Knoll wrote: > >> On 25 Oct 2018, at 09:51, Volker Krause via Development > >> <development@qt-project.org <mailto:development@qt-project.org>> wrote: > >> > >> On Thursday, 25 October 2018 09:11:42 CEST Simon Hausmann wrote: > >>> Am 25.10.18 um 08:31 schrieb Shawn Rutledge: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 24 Oct 2018, at 17:09, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com > >>>>> <mailto:jh...@gmx.com>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> In case it needs to be said- > >>>>> I am AGAINST racism, sexism, bigotry, and all the other exclusionary > >>>>> things. But I am also against people judging other people's code for > >>>>> factors that have nothing to do with the code itself. I find that > >>>>> adding > >>>>> a value judgement of conduct to code to be intolerant. We had the > >>>>> ideal. > >> I am FOR inclusion. I want everyone to feel welcome here. > >>>>> Everyone.> > >>>> I agree. It seems to be about fixing something that isn’t broken, or > as > >>>> in that story in the Bible where the people came to a consensus that > >>>> every other country around them had a king, so they should have a king > >>>> too. Nothing good came out of it in any cases where we have seen this > >>>> kind of illogic applied. “Most other big corporations have a deep > >>>> hierarchy of management, with too much power concentrated at the > >>>> top, and > >>>> we want to be a big corporation, so we need to replicate that.” “The > >>>> other lemmings are running away so maybe we’d better follow.” It’s > not > >>>> the open source way, which seemed to be working well enough already. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> If you give power to a committee of 3 people, they will probably > >>>> abuse it > >>>> eventually, misjudge, cause bitterness, create factions, and some > >>>> developers will end up walking away. Seems predictable, doesn’t it? > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> You claim that this is about fixing something that isn't broken. Your > >>> statement that a committee will predictably and eventually abuse their > >>> powers and misjudge is, I feel, a > >>> > >>> statement that is spreading fear, doubt and uncertainty, without any > >>> evidence within the scope of this community. > >>> > >>> > >>> On the other hand I am aware of at least one concrete case where the > >>> behavior of a reviewer has caused a contributor (with a track record > of > >>> accepted patches, btw) to > >>> > >>> turn away from the project and even resulted in an email of complaint > >>> sent to the community manager. The lack of tools, written > understanding > >>> and common agreement > >>> > >>> on what is good behavior resulted in that nothing happened at all and > >>> the contributor in question has stayed away from the project since > then. > >>> > >>> > >>> I do think that this is the exception, but it is crucial that we have > >>> the right tools and mechanisms in place when unlikely exceptions > happen, > >>> in order to deal with them > >>> > >>> instead of ignoring them. After having seen this with my own eyes, I > am > >>> convinced of that. > >>> > >>> > >>> Whether it is a code of conduct or kindness guidelines - anything like > >>> that is something that I welcome as an improvement. > >>> > >>> > >>> Simon > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and this > >> hasn't > >> led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against > >> white people > >> or whatever other nonsense people seem to attribute to CoCs nowadays. > >> > >> On the contrary, it gave us a solid foundation to act against the > >> (very few, > >> fortunately) cases of abusive behavior to protect our contributors. As > >> Simon I > >> have seen the damage such behavior can do, and therefore would also > >> welcome > >> tools/rules to be in place to deal with such situations. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Volker > > > > I fully agree. > > > > And btw, we have had a clear majority in favour of adding a CoC at the > > Contributor Summit, and explicitly agreed that a group of people will > > work on creating it. I’m happy we now have a first version, that we can > > use as a basis for further discussions. > > > > Cheers, > > Lars > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Development mailing list > > Development@qt-project.org > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
