On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 17:13 +0200, grumpy via Emc-users wrote: > > ---------------------------------------- > > From: Valerio Bellizzomi <vale...@selnet.org> > > Sent: Thu Jul 22 11:35:44 CEST 2021 > > To: <emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> > > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] The Code Of Conduct Fait Accompli > > > > > > I am making a big effort to understand why people is so adverse to > > rules. Every project on sourceforge/github has to follow rules of > > the > > site, and some projects have their own CoC. > > If you agreed to behave correctly before, the CoC should not affect > > you, unless you want to misbehave now. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 03:02 -0400, Bruce Layne wrote: > > > The "discussion" is apparently over and we still have the Code of > > > Conduct. > > > > > > https://linuxcnc.org/CODE_OF_CONDUCT > > > > > > It wasn't much of a discussion. Questions were asked but there > > > were > > > no > > > meaningful answers. > > > > > > At the risk of offending any programmers in the LinuxCNC > > > community > > > by > > > appropriating programmer culture, here is my pseudo code for the > > > LinuxCNC Code of Conduct Fait Accompli: > > > > > > > > > 01 IMPOSE CODE OF CONDUCT ON LINUXCNC COMMUNITY > > > 02 IF COMPLAINTS > 0 THEN GOTO 02 > > > 03 END > > > > > > > > > All of the complaints by those who didn't feel a code of conduct > > > was > > > needed have apparently now concluded and those who wanted a code > > > of > > > conduct to regulate other people's behavior have won without > > > ever > > > engaging on the issues... without ever justifying why their code > > > of > > > conduct was needed, without explaining what event might have > > > precipitated the rules imposed on others, etc. > > > > > > There was no need to explain who would decide what is > > > "disinformation" > > > or "conspiracy theories", or who would decide what is "other > > > conduct > > > which could reasonably be considered inappropriate", or who would > > > decide > > > what is "inappropriate language" or "inappropriate > > > images". There > > > was > > > no need to explain why the Code of Conduct was required when > > > there > > > were > > > no hostile comments on this group until the Code of Conduct > > > caused > > > all > > > of the recent animosity, resulting in exactly what it purported > > > to > > > prevent. > > > > > > One of the things I liked about LinuxCNC was that it was a > > > community > > > effort. Certainly there are a core group of contributors > > > (greatly > > > appreciated), but nobody was perceived as being in charge. There > > > was > > > a > > > spontaneous order arising from mutual cooperation. This open > > > source > > > community functioned very well without a lot of rules, and > > > certainly > > > without any rulers. I no longer feel that way. At best, rather > > > than > > > everyone behaving with courtesy and respect toward others because > > > it's > > > the right thing to do, it now feels like coerced behavior. I now > > > feel > > > that this community is under the rule of unelected and as yet > > > unnamed > > > rulers. > > > > > > The process was so opaque that I still don't know if one person > > > unilaterally enacted the Code of Conduct, or was there some > > > oligarchy > > > that made the decision after a secret discussion? > > > > > > When someone violates one of the subjective rules in the new Code > > > of > > > Conduct, will we then learn who the rulers are... or at least who > > > the > > > enforcers are? Or will dissidents be quietly disappeared in the > > > middle > > > of the night? > > > > > > An open source community that has always operated on mutual > > > consent > > > is > > > now operating under dictatorial decree with all objections > > > ignored > > > and > > > unanswered. I think that's very sad. > > > > > > I don't like the subjective rules in the Code of Conduct. They > > > seem > > > politically motivated and the vague rules can be selectively > > > enforced. > > > I also feel that the Code of Conduct will cause problems rather > > > than > > > preventing problems. That concern seems warranted based on the > > > hostile > > > arguments we've already suffered as a direct result of the Code > > > of > > > Conduct. Mostly, I didn't like the way the Code of Conduct was > > > unilaterally decreed without discussion, and when a few people > > > tried > > > to > > > initiate a discussion, they were ignored by the person who posted > > > the > > > Code of Conduct. I'm left with the feeling that there wasn't > > > any > > > explanation for why the Code of Conduct was needed because there > > > wasn't > > > an actual need to regulate the behavior of a group that has been > > > self > > > regulated for decades. The Code of Conduct couldn't be > > > justified, > > > so > > > there was no effort to justify it. If there was an actual need, > > > why > > > wasn't there a discussion that led to community standards that > > > were > > > established by the community? That would have been a far less > > > contentious process than someone posting the new Code of Conduct > > > for > > > everyone else to follow without prior discussion and without any > > > community consensus. > > It's about changing horses in midstream. > When we joined this group there were certain rules we agreed to.
It happens also in real life in countless occasions. I am prepared to the change. > Now one person decided it's their way or the highway. > Jeff will ban you from the list if he doesn't like your post. One more reason to behave correctly. When I started commenting on this topic I have been attacked personally for my opinions, with people mailing me privately off-list, I consider this a violation to politeness and research of peace. And yes, it was offensive to see people trying to divert discussion from the list to my private mail, it may be considered as harassment, so we have at hand an example of CoC violation. _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
