Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated. Here's some comments, in no particularly good order:
* Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please? Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first one that came to mind. > As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting > given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for > Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this > proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml > comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive guidelines for members of the community, with penalties for failing to live up to those guidelines kept vague and mostly out-of-sight, while still implying that the rules have teeth. Our doc focuses much more on not doing bad things (instead of on an implicit expectation of doing good things), it actually highlights punishment before bad behavior before good (or "acceptable") behavior, and the tone is rather more tentative. I much prefer Ubuntu's doc. It's not completely relevant to Gentoo, but I'd much rather crib from their text (assuming Ubuntu's permission, since that doc is copyrighted and I don't know what license, if any, they use), making minor changes to better reflect how Gentoo works, than use the proposed doc in its current form. > Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in > order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at > 2100UTC. * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. * Having a group of folks separate from devrel who would be doing similar things to what devrel does (when devrel isn't involved in recruiting) somehow seems a bit silly. I'd much rather we just broaden that part of Developer Relations to Community Relations. * Ubuntu requires that their devs sign a copy of their code of conduct. (I assume an electronic signature suffices?) Would that be a good idea for us to do something similar? I don't really have a strong feeling one way or another. Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that has gone into this so far. Thank you very much. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpC9y5kFBjPg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
