Legoktm wrote:
>On 11/21/2016 01:36 AM, Adrian Raddatz wrote:
>> So, are we unable to enforce these things currently? If someone
>>comments on a Phabricator task that user X is a big meanyface, are we
>>unable to act currently because there's no code of conduct so how could
>>they have known otherwise?
>The current guideline is
>It only applies to Phabricator, not all technical spaces, like the
>proposed COC.

If we disregard these pages:


And the many others listed at these places:

And if we disregard any application of common sense, then yes, you could
argue that a technical code of conduct is needed. When you consider the
actual context, however, it becomes pretty clear that this is unnecessary
bureaucracy. The repeated concerns about outsized influence by
Wikimedia Foundation employees have largely gone ignored.

Quim Gil wrote:
>The discussion about this CoC is no exception, and we have seen WMF
>employees with different opinions and votes at almost every point.

If we discount discussions like "Finalize introduction to "Committee"
section?" on the talk page, I suppose:
It's plain to see in discussions like this that every support vote came
from Wikimedia Foundation employees or employees of another Wikimedia
affiliate (WMDE and WMFR). The opposing votes came from volunteers, but
three of the four were struck as being too late.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to