On 07/04/2021 18.03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:42:01PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 07.04.2021 um 15:35 hat Alex Bennée geschrieben:
Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes:
Am 31.03.2021 um 17:05 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
+respectful. Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
+
+* The use of sexualized language or imagery
+
+* Personal attacks
+
+* Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments
+
+* Public or private harassment
+
+* Publishing other's private information, such as physical or electronic
+addresses, without explicit permission
"Electronic addresses"? No more Cc: in emails without asking for
explicit permission first in each case, especially when looping in
people who are not subscribed to the list? And the same for attribution
in commits (turning informal statements into Reported-by, Acked-by
etc.)? Links to git repositories of other people?
I'm sure that this is not what was intended, but it's pretty clearly the
implication of what is written here.
I'm pretty sure emails used to post to public mailing lists (or used
in a dco tag) are considered public pieces of information. I read the
above as covering things that are not public such as private email
addresses or chat ids and the likes.
Yes, it's pretty clear that I'm not publishing new information about
people when I'm keeping them in Cc: when replying to a thread, or even
when they posted in another thread on the list recently. It becomes much
less clear for adding people who aren't usually part of the QEMU
community.
(This kind of "bugs" is one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of
written rules instead of trusting the judgement of community leaders.
In the communities I am involved in, I can't remember many cases where
they actually helped to resolve conflicts, but I can remember many
unproductive discussions about how to interpret the written text and
what it does and doesn't cover.)
Well we don't have to start here ;-)
We explicitly try to avoid rules lawyering with the very next statement:
This isn't an exhaustive list of things that you can't do. Rather, take
it in the spirit in which it's intended: a guide to make it easier to
be excellent to each other.
Right, though it doesn't make any of the above rules any less strict. It
just tells me that I'm still in danger even if I follow the explicitly
mentioned things.
This might be the worst of both worlds: We explicitly threaten people
with consequences if they don't keep the rules, but then we don't tell
them what the rules even are and say they should use common sense
("you'll find out what the rules were when we punish you for breaking
them").
I _think_ I'm usually not misbehaving, but how can I know for sure that
others have the same impression? For me, this creates a situation of
uncertainty, and uncertainty makes me feel uneasy. Maybe I'm the only
one, though, and the benefits outweigh my uneasiness.
The docs clearly say that if others feel that there is a conflict with you,
they should try to clarify that problem with you directly first. So unless
there is someone already repetively complaining about your behavior, just
relax, there is nothing to worry about.
I think you need to bear in mind that we're not using some crude AI
to apply blind enforcement of rules. The people responsible for any
enforcement have the ability to apply common sense to situation and so
aren't likely to take action if someone complains about "publishing" an
email address by adding it to a CC on a thread / git commit message.
Right. I trust the QEMU leadership committee with their judgement.
If we don't have any CoC then that creates much worse uncertainty because
people who are on the receiving end of bad behaviour will have no idea
whether the QEMU project as a whole even cares about it, or whether it
is the kind of thing that will lead to action being taken, or whom to
talk to about it.
Right. That's the point. If someone is really, really misbehaving, we also
need a way to show them the door. This is only a last resort, of course, but
if someone is really behaving like a complete jerk, we need a way to say:
Look, that's not the way how we want to interact with each other in the QEMU
community, and if you don't change your attitude, there might be consequences.
Thomas
