It's OK with me. As I said at the beginning I'd prefer something broader and less specific but I didn't find anything useful.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Bill Deegan <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > So are we good with: > http://contributor-covenant.org/ > > If so I'll add it to the new website. > > -Bill > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Anatoly, >> >> Am 28.12.2015 um 15:33 schrieb anatoly techtonik: >> >>> [...] >>> >>>> I'm not sure why you're objecting to this unless you think you are >>>> likely to >>>> violate a CoC.. >>>> >>> Because following CoC makes people CoC-followers, which is offensive for >>> some. Don't be a jerk rule is good enough and the rules should be applied >>> only when they are needed on personal basis. >>> >>> I am against CoCs. It makes me feel regulated and I am sick and tired of >>> that, >>> so I likely to act against it and you have to ban me. >>> >> feel free to "act against it", but "filibustering" (refer to >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/filibuster and optionally >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM ) won't help. We've already >> reached consensus to have a simple CoC and are simply ironing out the last >> details. >> >> @all: Are we ready to move on with this one and take some action? I am... >> >> Best regards, >> >> Dirk >> >> P.S.: Nobody wants to ban you. We'll simply continue with our plan and >> are ready to face the consequences of you getting "sick and tired" about >> feeling regulated again... >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scons-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > > -- Gary
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
