On 07/21/16 12:13 AM, Adam Števko wrote: > Hi Till, > >> On Jul 20, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Till Wegmüller <toaster...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2016 23:35, Adam Števko wrote: >>> >>> Please compose your thoughts and comment with as few replies as >>> necessary so the community may solidify the final text of this document. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Adam >>> >> >> Hi Adam, Hi Nikola >> >> Thanks both of you for the work put into this. >> >> Here are my thought and comments: >> When reading Adams text it refers to a body of Leadership. Both source Projects (FreeBSD and FiFo) have such a Role defined. Do we have that? > > Not anything official right now. Every decision was made by one of the contributors and we tried to reach a consensus. If the decision was too important, project contributors consulted those topics with various people and tried to do their best. However, most things were mostly technical and not political. Unless leader steps up or different governing body is found, there isn’t anything. The deciding comes as a part of moving the project forward.
Deciding comes from the public, not private sessions. > > > I have also discussed this topic with Alexander today and we both concluded that we has just killed the time with it. We are small developer community, (mostly) nice to each other and try to help. I also think that every contributor has found his place within a project already. If any proposal came from me, I’d just make the present situation official, but there are certainly drawbacks to it. If you can't figure it out, then let other people do it. It is not expected from two of you to figure out everything, just accept not everyone is good at everything. > > >> Adams text is more worded towards being a set of rules. Nikolas more in the sense of expectations. I prefer expectations. > > Problem with expectations in Nikola’s list is that majority of them are already in practice and the situation is out of hands. What situation?? > > >> When I read the words "will not be tolerated" it imediatly raises the question what will hapen if i break those? Who punshes and how? In my opinion "Discouraged behaviour" is the better wording. > > The point of using “strong” words is to show that we take it seriously. Rules can't be broken if they are written in such way that no one actually understand what they represent and that is the whole "Not tolerated" section is alike. Let "Not tolerated" section be not tolerated itself, fully. > If rules are broken, the situation is going to be handled privately to avoid > any (more) drama on the mailing list and ensure that the problem is solved. > And who punishes? The CoC states that distribution maintainers are the one to > do so. We can change it as it is a draft. Perhaps, somebody could volunteer. > I can assure you that nobody wants to do it and behave like a teacher in the > kinder garden. Fortunately, the community hadn’t had to solve any serious > issues and there weren’t any > The whole idea behind the code of conduct is > to show the community and the outside world that we are a community of people, who don’t tolerate toxic people. There are multiple problems with such people, most present in OI: > > - community members are unsubscribing from the list - there has been too much drama in the past few months and it needs to be stopped. Nobody wants to deal with toxic people. You could see one example right in this email thread. > - public debates - many things are debated in the private because people want to work on the project and have something done. If you send out an email to oi-dev mailing list, the email is quickly going to hijacked or made off-topic. Who has the energy to deal with it every time? > > With CoC in place, we can simply show the potential new users and also those, who unsubscribed that situation changed and that we mean it seriously. After all, everybody wants to have a peaceful and enjoyable time while using/developing OI. > However, that can’t be reached while toxic people are present. > > Cheers, > Adam I think that by calling people toxic it is what is making toxic environment. Adam, please stop saying bad words about people in general on this list.. OI is inclusive community as defined when created. Making it exclusive, totalitarian, ruled by the iron fist is what can not be defendable by any means. If we are living in 1984 novel world, I would consider such anti human look at the things, but we do not. Inventing "enemies" even if there are none is cold-war type of thinking. Warning on results of oppression is not. We are on the verge of the cliff here, where publicly speaking is considered not needed and discussing is considered negative and doing things secretly, policing and giving people sense of fear should not be the norm. Someone wanting to lead, should not oppress.
_______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
