On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 10:42 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > I dislike standards for persons, behaviour or personalities. There's no > > such thing as a standard for personalities, behaviour and persons.
> Anarchies don't function very well. Try Rousseau's social contract if you > want to get philisophical about it. Groups of people just choose different > contracts, with differing tradeoffs of liberty versus freedom, usually > with checks and balances to tradeoff at a sensible point. I agree > Abuse and aggression is also incredibly ineffective even if you think you > might (theoretically, and maybe I've misunderstood you) think that it's > useful sometimes. First .. (on the core principles and rules of our community) I do think you can, as a community, forbid aggression, abuse, lying about people or trying to discredit somebody by making false statements. Everything that is a personal attack on somebody can in my opinion be forbidden. Question: How will be define what is and what isn't a personal attack? Second .. (on the content, as some people asked here) My opinion on how the content should be used, is as a 'guide' for people who join our community. I agree that therefore the naming "code" is a bit misplaced. I would call it "a guide to a community with people that respect each other". I think we can trust 99% of the people to try hard to follow this guide without having to call it a "code". Given that these are the current core points: o. Be respectful and considerate o. Be patient and generous o. Assume people mean well o. Try to be concise > I, and many others, do not take part in communities which are clearly > unpleasant or ineffective. I'm often unpleasant myself, yet I share your opinion on this. To be "patient and generous" should also apply to people who are pro this code. Therefore I propose to add this point: o. Be pragmatic about this code: People usually have good intentions. Sometimes they make a mistake and don't follow this code. This doesn't mean that the person in question can't be a member of our community. It simply means he made a mistake. It's human nature. Forgive people as they would forgive you. (And no, I'm not inspired by Christianity. I simply agree with it) If that point would be added, I would switch sides and would agree that the code is a good idea. [cut - I agree] -- Philip Van Hoof, software developer at x-tend home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org work: vanhoof at x-tend dot be http://www.pvanhoof.be - http://www.x-tend.be _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list