Gergo Tisza <gtisza at wikimedia.org> wrote: > I'd still like the understand what the assumed harm is. Is this strictly a > moral issue, where you want to avoid giving misleading information, but > otherwise that information would be harmless? Or a liability issue, where > your clients think that working on / using a CoC-covered extension makes it > more likely that they get sued or publicly attacked? Or do you think you > might work with clients who might be deterred because they do development > in ways that violate the CoC, and would be unwilling to change that? Or > some clients might boycott such extensions for political reasons?
If I can put words in your mouth, it sounds, based on the specific examples you give, like your real question is: how would I (and the people I work with) feel about having the scope of the Code of Conduct be expanded to match what CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md says? If so, that's a fair question, but I'd rather not answer it in this thread - I've been trying to keep this discussion focused on a few basic factual questions (is the CoC file accurate? Is it mandatory?), and even that has led to a pretty wide-ranging and heated discussion. So I'd rather not add another very big topic into the mix. It might make sense to create a separate discussion for that topic, though. -Yaron _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
