Aron Griffis wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:35:52PM CDT] > This should be shortened to say just what it means: Developers will > have more fun, be more productive, and create a better distribution if > we concentrate on the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks.
Although I tend to agree with your comments about the quality of the writing, it's worth noting that much of this document was swiped from Ubuntu's code of conduct. > This part makes sense, I think... though I don't see the point of > codifying it except to "throw the book" at the next Paludis. Frankly > I think Ciaran did nothing wrong to restrict distribution on a project > he didn't feel was ready for public consumption. It has always seemed > to me like the overreactions were the problem. I think you're reading too much into that passage. It's from Ubuntu's code of conduct, and it is essentially stating (part of?) their social policy. > > Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and > > stability threat to Gentoo. > > Classic switching to the passive voice when the actor wishes to be > distanced from the action. WHO will view these behaviors as > a security and stability threat to Gentoo? Is this a statement the > existing developers are making? The foundation? Infra? Here I'll certainly agree. In fact, I agree with the rest of your statements, so I can stop here. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpbfN8lXEfcg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
