On 11.04.2017 16:53, Jason Crain wrote: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 11:58:00PM +0200, Albert Astals Cid wrote: >> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/ has appeared from thin air >> from no public discussion that I can see. >> >> I don't disagree with having a code of conduct, but having one forced down >> our >> throats seems kind of a violation of the code of conduct itself. >> >> How would the community feel about moving the project somewhere else? >> Suggestions welcome.
I probably don't count yet as community because my attempted contributions are minor. That said, moving to a place where you get told about new rules before they get enacted and where project leaders are not threatened with "permanent repercussions" (quoted from the CoC) for failing to enforce rules made by others might be a wise move. Once a project leader runs afoul of the CoC by accident, they might not even be allowed to move their project elsewhere. Who knows. Better safe than sorry. > I do think that this should have been publicly discussed before it was > adopted. According to Daniel Stone's recent email¹ on the xdg list, > this was discussed privately by the fd.o admins, but I believe there > should also have been a public discussion period. > > However, I think having a CoC is good and I don't see anything I > disagree with in the CoC. Quoting from the CoC: "Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership." This is pretty bad. Imposing an arbitrary CoC is one thing, but threatening project maintainers with punishment for not enforcing that CoC takes this to another level. Quoting from the CoC: "Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct" This might be difficult. If you have the responsibility to remove, edit or reject commits, this means rewriting git history for any tree containing an ancient commit which happens to violate the CoC. Note that it says "commits", not "unmerged commits". > I would prefer that it be more explicit, > especially regarding how enforcement and complaints are handled, but > overall I agree with it and I don't think that poppler should leave fd.o > because of this. Enacting a law without any hint of an appeals process or even the right of a purported offender to defend themselves and/or review the supposedly incriminating material is really scary. Overall, the principle of legal certainty seems to be missing in the CoC. > ¹ https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2017-April/013882.html That linked email is also pretty interesting. It even might violate one of the principles of the CoC: "What is set in stone is that we [...] are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back from it." -> violates "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism". If even people involved in enacting the CoC happen to violate the CoC unintentionally, that doesn't bode well for those who didn't spend the same amount of time thinking about it. The CoC was enacted with good intentions, but really suboptimal execution. Regards, Carl-Daniel _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
