Adopting both actually does nothing for those who take issue with the CoC, since between the 2 documents the stricter one must take precedence in order to mean anything at all.
-- Alex Griffin On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Gábor Boskovits wrote: > Hello > > George Clemmer <myg...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 26., P, 1:04): > > > > Hello > > > > Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes: > > > > > Hello Mathieu, > > > > > >> Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> skribis: > > >> > > >>> Following the announcement made by RMS regarding the new GNU Kind > > >>> Communication Guidelines (GKCG) [1], I would like to know if the Guix > > >>> developpers in particular its maintainers would agree to adopt it in > > >>> place of the current Code of Conduct (CoC)? > > >> > > >> Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important > > >> issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as > > >> clear processes to address this. > > > > > > [Apologies for the delay; I’m currently traveling.] > > > > > > Adding to what Ludovic wrote, I also would not want to replace the > > > current proven Contributor Covenant with the recently emerged GKCG. > > > Using *both* of them would not be useful, I think, as I find our current > > > CoC to be sufficient; using *only* the GKCG and dropping the existing > > > CoC would be a mistake in my opinion, as our CoC describes a process > > > which the GKCG does not. > > I belive that if there are voices who would like to have them both, there is > actually no problem with using both. The current CoC is in fact sufficient, > but > if having the GKCG also makes people feel better I am not opposed to adopt it. > > > > > > > Committing to a process to deal with grievances is a very desirable > > > feature of our current CoC that I don’t want to give up. As one of the > > > people who shares responsibility for dealing with incidents of > > > harassment or misunderstandings, this helps me do a better job. > > > > > > Even so, I encourage people to continue to engage in fostering kind > > > communication in the channels of the Guix project, something that this > > > community by and large does very well. > > > > > >>> Adopting the GKCG instead of a CoC would help attracting people (like > > >>> me) who agree to use a welcoming and respectful language which > > >>> encourages everyone to contribute but are reluctant in contributing to > > >>> any project following a CoC due to its punitive nature and the politics > > >>> of its authors [2][3]. > > > > > > To me the politics of the author(s) of the original or current version > > > of the Contributor Covenant don’t play much of a role in prefering it as > > > a practical guiding document for this community. (I don’t know the > > > author.) > > > > > > I think I see how it could be seen as “punitive”, but I don’t share this > > > assessment. We all want what’s best for the project and the people who > > > currently work on or consider working on it — to me the emergence of the > > > GKCG is more evidence that this is true. I hope that seeing these > > > similarities in intent more than the differences in implementation will > > > allow you to overcome your feeling of reluctance to contribute to Guix > > > (and other projects that have decided to adopt a CoC). > > > > The responses above seem consistent with why CoC mightq appeal to > > maintainers. But as a Guix user and occasional contributor, I find GKCG > > more welcoming and more useful. For me, RMS' rationale is compelling: > > > > The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start > > guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before > > one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The > > way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is > > try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. > > > > It is really the either-or situation implied by the discussion above? > > > > What would be wrong with adding GKCG and keeping CoC? > > > > I think this can be done, I feel nothing wrong with it. > > > - George > > > > It is also quite obvious what the maintainers feel missing from > GKCG, so it also might be possible to improve on the current > GKCG and make some of the features of CoC available, like: > 1. Explicitly defining acceptable and not acceptable behaviour > (maybe by providing a liked document for that for flexibility and > easier adoptation) > 2. Explicitly define a process to deal with issues > (this can also be a linked doument) > One way to do this easily would be to provide the current CoC as the > linked document > defining these. Later we could improve on this. > WDYT? > > Best regards, > g_bor >