xdg Digest, Vol 157, Issue 3

[Lazarus Long]

‎Would those CoC prohibit the creation of malware based on DBUS, UnionFS, ConsoleKit, PolicyKit and a few others, using freedesktop.org to load these malware modules? Then I'm all for it.

You folks are really something.
Original Message
From: xdg-***@lists.freedesktop.org
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 14:00
To: ***@lists.freedesktop.org
Reply To: ***@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: xdg Digest, Vol 157, Issue 3


Send xdg mailing list submissions to
***@lists.freedesktop.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
xdg-***@lists.freedesktop.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
xdg-***@lists.freedesktop.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of xdg digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Contributor convenant (Philipp A.)
2. Re: Contributor convenant (mdn)
3. Re: XDG_STATE_HOME (Thomas Koch)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 12:01:17 +0000
From: "Philipp A." <flying-***@web.de>
To: mdn <***@openmailbox.org>, ***@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: Contributor convenant
Message-ID:
<CAN8d9gnO+8_FJHDYfCiCkOpHCMSGB=***@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

i’m sure they weren’t. neither by those who wrote the contributor covenant,
nor by those who committed it here.

i see the problems you mentioned, and one more: the CC doesn’t prevent
bullying, it just forces bullies to act differently. instead of using
hurtful language, they just have to come up with believable accusations
against the victim, and the CC will require to treat those alleged
perpetrators with extreme prejudice. if anything, this makes bullying more
effective: assholes using hurtful language can be called out. assholes who
throw around baseless accusations usually can’t, and the CC asks others to
support accusers.

as long as people are sensible and not sticklers to the rules, this is no
issue. but in that case, not using any CC or just laying down some basic
rules will be enough as well.

best, philipp

Hello,
Today I have been informed that the CoC named the "Contributor
convenant" has been added to the freedesktop.org wiki.
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/

As a freedesktop project maintainer i find this very sad.
I don't disagree with having a Code of Conduct, but creating one and

forcing

it without any kind of input from the community is totally *bad* conduct.

You can never make people do anything.
--Marshall B. Rosenberg
Surely no bad intentions were in mind.

Albert
P.S: If this was discussed somewhere please point me where, it may just

be

that i'm a bad maintainer and i'm not subscribed to the proper places.
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20170409/227c9cfd/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 17:22:48 +0200
From: mdn <***@openmailbox.org>
To: "Philipp A." <flying-***@web.de>, ***@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: Contributor convenant
Message-ID: <***@openmailbox.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

i’m sure they weren’t. neither by those who wrote the contributor
covenant, nor by those who committed it here.
i see the problems you mentioned, and one more: the CC doesn’t prevent
bullying, it just forces bullies to act differently.

Indeed.
But it goes further than that.
These rules if followed to the letter are what stops people from evolving.
By evolving I mean the simple fact of having experience from possible
events.
It's some sort of Darwinism but of the mind.
How can one gain experience if everything can be seen has bad ?
How do we strengthen our minds if we constantly shelter ourselves ?

instead of using hurtful language, they just have to come up with believable accusations
against the victim, and the CC will require to treat those alleged
perpetrators with extreme prejudice. if anything, this makes bullying
more effective: assholes using hurtful language can be called out.
assholes who throw around baseless accusations usually can’t, and the CC
asks others to support accusers.
as long as people are sensible and not sticklers to the rules, this is
no issue. but in that case, not using any CC or just laying down some
basic rules will be enough as well.

Some people will call that common sense.
Most of the rules of the CC are already in the laws.
And there's a reasons that our ancestors haven't put some of them in it.
And even with these laws it isn't stopping people from going over it.
There is actually no way to stop people but the one of education and
argumentation.
Speech must bring more speech, not enforced silence.
We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things
that we don't like.
We can only live together in that way; if we are to live together and
not die together.

best, philipp

Hello,
Today I have been informed that the CoC named the "Contributor
convenant" has been added to the freedesktop.org

<http://freedesktop.org> wiki.

https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/

As a freedesktop project maintainer i find this very sad.
I don't disagree with having a Code of Conduct, but creating one

and forcing

it without any kind of input from the community is totally *bad*

conduct.
You can never make people do anything.
--Marshall B. Rosenberg
Surely no bad intentions were in mind.

Albert
P.S: If this was discussed somewhere please point me where, it may

just be

that i'm a bad maintainer and i'm not subscribed to the proper places.
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

Freely
BERNARD

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20170409/5268192e/attachment-0001.sig>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 19:29:39 +0200
From: Thomas Koch <***@koch.ro>
To: ***@lists.freedesktop.org, ***@markus-raab.org
Cc: ***@stebalien.com
Subject: Re: XDG_STATE_HOME
Message-ID: <***@x121e>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The discussion about a STATE dir is at least 8 years old now:

https://wiki.debian.org/XDGBaseDirectorySpecification section "Proposal: STATE
directory" and linked mail threads in this list.

Please, give the world a standard dir in $HOME to save state!

I found this thread because stebalien@ had the same complaint on github:
"One thing I'm really not happy about is the spec's lack of an XDG_STATE_DIR."

https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs/issues/3589

Never give up hope.

Thomas


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
***@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg


------------------------------

End of xdg Digest, Vol 157, Issue 3
***********************************

[Daniel Stone]

Hi to whoever lives under this pseudonym,

Post by Lazarus Long
‎Would those CoC prohibit the creation of malware based on DBUS, UnionFS, ConsoleKit, PolicyKit and a few others, using freedesktop.org to load these malware modules? Then I'm all for it.
You folks are really something.

Regardless of your opinion of software design, characterising
everyone's efforts as 'malware' is not OK. The term is very well
defined, and trolling isn't welcome here.

Replying to two other mails on the thread, which I don't have to hand:

We should've done a better job at announcing this. I am now in the
process of contacting all our member projects, of which there are
surprisingly many, to go through this change with them. In the
meantime some more details are at
https://www.fooishbar.org/blog/fdo-contributor-covenant/

The accusations levelled against the Ada Initiative by ESR, a noted
non-contributor of code to this and many other communities, would be
laughable if they weren't so insanely libellous. If the desire is to
be able to have unimpeded technical discussions, then accusing
external people (with absolutely no evidence) of trying to set up fake
sexual assults for ... well, I have no idea what anyone stands to gain
out of that, or why they would do that (neither does ESR), is really
not a great way to go about it. I can only offer my assurance that I
haven't introduced the CoC as a vehicle to either a) level fake sexual
assault allegations for unclear motives, or b) try to destroy the
livelihoods of others by doing the same.

Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

Cheers,
Daniel

[Philipp A.]

Hi Daniel,

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

This is great news, as this way, the identified problems with its wording
can be actually used to improve upon it. I was probably too much in the
“software license” mindset, where a layman can’t dare to change the wording
without fucking up. But actual feedback to improve this, based on other
communities’ experiences? Sign me up.

For one, I’d like to point to the Rust community, which also uses a CoC
that begins similarly to, but is less problematic than the CC:
https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/conduct.html

Regarding constructive criticism: The CC’s “Enforcement” paragraph is
highly problematic. Its intent is clearly to foster accountability and
prevent harrassers going unscathed due to being buddies with a mod. But it
only protects the reporter, while nothing protects the (maybe wrongly)
accused. I want to see a more “innocent until proven guilty” mindset
reflected in a CoC. Accusing people shouldn’t be a powerful tool for
harrassers, and witch hunts should be discouraged.

Best, Philipp

[Alexandre Franke]

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

I encourage you to read https://grep.be/blog//en/retorts/Codes_of_Conduct/

[mdn]

I am going to be absent for a certain amount of time.
Will I don't have the time to express myself correctly to respond to the
multiple emails, because my time is short, I recommend to anyone to read
this:
"Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life".

I have scanned the first three chapters, I highly recommend anyone to
read them:
https://hubzilla.link/channel/lo/?f=&mid=***@hubzilla.link&zid=lo%40hubzilla.link

Freely
BERNARD

Post by Alexandre Franke

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

I encourage you to read https://grep.be/blog//en/retorts/Codes_of_Conduct/

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Alexandre,

Post by Alexandre Franke

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

I encourage you to read https://grep.be/blog//en/retorts/Codes_of_Conduct/

I'm familiar with the Debian CoC, and the discussions around its
introduction. I hadn't read Wouter's specific blog; it's an
interesting point, but I'm not sure I agree. It's definitely something
to consider though, and I'd like to compare it to best practice
elsewhere. Thanks!

Cheers,
Daniel

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Philipp,

Post by Philipp A.

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

This is great news, as this way, the identified problems with its wording
can be actually used to improve upon it. I was probably too much in the
“software license” mindset, where a layman can’t dare to change the wording
without fucking up. But actual feedback to improve this, based on other
communities’ experiences? Sign me up.
For one, I’d like to point to the Rust community, which also uses a CoC that
https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/conduct.html
Regarding constructive criticism: The CC’s “Enforcement” paragraph is highly
problematic. Its intent is clearly to foster accountability and prevent
harrassers going unscathed due to being buddies with a mod. But it only
protects the reporter, while nothing protects the (maybe wrongly) accused. I
want to see a more “innocent until proven guilty” mindset reflected in a
CoC. Accusing people shouldn’t be a powerful tool for harrassers, and witch
hunts should be discouraged.

Is the enforcement section your primary problem with the CC, and how
specifically (in terms of actual language used - or not used) do you
see Rust's CoC as improving on this? Is it the piece where it insists
on the CC being both followed and enforced? If so, I personally read
that to mean that reports cannot be ignored, and problematic behaviour
cannot be waved away. I _don't_ read it as an assumption that every
report must result in action being taken against the accused, no
matter what. If we provided a tool which allowed anyone to kick anyone
else out of a community just by presenting a few magic keywords, we
would have utterly failed; I don't think the CC as written has done
that.

Thanks a lot!

Cheers,
Daniel

[Philipp A.]

Post by Daniel Stone
Hi Philipp,

hi!

Post by Daniel Stone
Is the enforcement section your primary problem with the CC, and
how specifically (in terms of actual language used - or not used) do
you see Rust's CoC as improving on this? [
] I *don't* read it as an
assumption that every report must result in action being taken against the
accused, no matter what.

it specifically mentions the actions taken (warning → kick → ban),
including the possibility to appeal. it doesn’t use threatening language to
announce “repercussions” for project leaders. i think the way it’s written
is less aggressive and leaves more room for forgiveness.

for me, the CC sounds like immediate harsh punishment for even
ignorance-caused transgressions is a *possibility*. Like in a bank, if you
say the wrong word, the shutters go down, the sirens activate, and the
police is called. rust’s CoC sounds like it was written by and for people
you can talk to.

Thanks a lot!

Post by Daniel Stone
Cheers,
Daniel

NP, thanks for caring about the community!

Cheers!

[Albert Astals Cid]

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

Can you clarify why do you think the sysadmins have the right to impose such a
big change on the rest of the community without prior consultation?

Cheers,
Albert

Post by Daniel Stone
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Albert,

Post by Albert Astals Cid

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

Can you clarify why do you think the sysadmins have the right to impose such a
big change on the rest of the community without prior consultation?

freedesktop provides services to communities, including mailing lists,
bug trackers, Git hosting, web hosting, etc etc. We as the admins
already have to intervene to remove legally-impermissible content
(e.g. when someone uploaded third-party proprietary code they weren't
allowed to distribute, or when links to child pornography make it into
mailing list archives) from these services, because the responsibility
falls on fd.o as the provider rather than the more diffuse individual
communities.

Our original plan was to offer the CoC (pre-made template text and a
point of contact) as an opt-in, where projects could contact us and
add it themselves. But, as with the above, behaviour of the individual
communities reflects on fd.o as a whole. We aren't a diffuse/random
hosting site like GitHub, but instead work with individually-selected
projects. With this comes responsibility on both sides: we cannot just
wash our hands of the behaviour of the member communities.

We did discuss this with a number of people, but with over 100 quite
diffuse projects (some active, some stagnant, some abandoned, some
unclear), and running fd.o not being a paid activity (or even the
primary project we work on) for any of us, we weren't able to reach
everyone. My apologies if you/Poppler feel excluded, or imposed upon,
but you have my full attention now. :)

What I'm trying to do over the course of this week is get in touch
with all of the member projects and walk through this with them. Both
seeking their feedback, and establishing points of contact, so the CoC
and enforcement are actually driven by the communities themselves,
rather than being imposed from on high. I know that might seem at odds
with how this has been announced, so again please take my apologies
for that, but we are trying to do the right thing.

The text itself of the CoC is not set in stone, and if you have any
particular issues with the text that is there, it'd be great to get
any feedback so we can work on it. Just as our communities are living
and evolving creatures, so too is the CoC.

Cheers,
Daniel

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dimecres, 12 d’abril de 2017, a les 17:49:56 CEST, Daniel Stone va

Post by Daniel Stone
Hi Albert,

Post by Albert Astals Cid

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

Can you clarify why do you think the sysadmins have the right to impose
such a big change on the rest of the community without prior
consultation?

freedesktop provides services to communities, including mailing lists,
bug trackers, Git hosting, web hosting, etc etc. We as the admins
already have to intervene to remove legally-impermissible content
(e.g. when someone uploaded third-party proprietary code they weren't
allowed to distribute, or when links to child pornography make it into
mailing list archives) from these services, because the responsibility
falls on fd.o as the provider rather than the more diffuse individual
communities.
Our original plan was to offer the CoC (pre-made template text and a
point of contact) as an opt-in, where projects could contact us and
add it themselves. But, as with the above, behaviour of the individual
communities reflects on fd.o as a whole. We aren't a diffuse/random
hosting site like GitHub, but instead work with individually-selected
projects. With this comes responsibility on both sides: we cannot just
wash our hands of the behaviour of the member communities.
We did discuss this with a number of people, but with over 100 quite
diffuse projects (some active, some stagnant, some abandoned, some
unclear), and running fd.o not being a paid activity (or even the
primary project we work on) for any of us, we weren't able to reach
everyone.

Why did you not use this list?

The frontpage of freedesktop.org says

"Contacting freedesktop: If you have any comments or questions about this site
or its infrastructures, please send a message to the xdg list "

So it seems that this would have been the obvious place to discuss the
application of a Code of Conduct and making it easy for eveyone involved in
freedesktop to learn about it from the source instead of from the news.

Cheers,
Albert

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Albert,

Post by Albert Astals Cid
El dimecres, 12 d’abril de 2017, a les 17:49:56 CEST, Daniel Stone va

Post by Daniel Stone
We did discuss this with a number of people, but with over 100 quite
diffuse projects (some active, some stagnant, some abandoned, some
unclear), and running fd.o not being a paid activity (or even the
primary project we work on) for any of us, we weren't able to reach
everyone.

Why did you not use this list?
The frontpage of freedesktop.org says
"Contacting freedesktop: If you have any comments or questions about this site
or its infrastructures, please send a message to the xdg list "
So it seems that this would have been the obvious place to discuss the
application of a Code of Conduct and making it easy for eveyone involved in
freedesktop to learn about it from the source instead of from the news.

The wiki also says that the sole purpose of fd.o is for X Window
System desktops, and that source code is often maintained in CVS and
Subversion. :\ It could use some work.

Once upon a time that was true, but these days xdg@ sticks to the
actual XDG standards. It's a very bad way to reach quite a lot of our
member projects.

Cheers,
Daniel

[Albert Astals Cid]

El divendres, 14 d’abril de 2017, a les 11:27:37 CEST, Daniel Stone va

Post by Daniel Stone
Hi Albert,

Post by Albert Astals Cid
El dimecres, 12 d’abril de 2017, a les 17:49:56 CEST, Daniel Stone va

Post by Daniel Stone
We did discuss this with a number of people, but with over 100 quite
diffuse projects (some active, some stagnant, some abandoned, some
unclear), and running fd.o not being a paid activity (or even the
primary project we work on) for any of us, we weren't able to reach
everyone.

Why did you not use this list?
The frontpage of freedesktop.org says
"Contacting freedesktop: If you have any comments or questions about this
site or its infrastructures, please send a message to the xdg list "
So it seems that this would have been the obvious place to discuss the
application of a Code of Conduct and making it easy for eveyone involved in
freedesktop to learn about it from the source instead of from the news.

The wiki also says that the sole purpose of fd.o is for X Window
System desktops, and that source code is often maintained in CVS and
Subversion. :\ It could use some work.
actual XDG standards. It's a very bad way to reach quite a lot of our
member projects.

Ok, could i suggest that maybe you need a list so you don't need to chase
projects one for one when you intend to introduce such drastic changes in the
future again?

Because the only thing you're doing is offering excuses, which i'm not
interested in, i'm interested in solutions.

Albert

Post by Daniel Stone
Cheers,
Daniel

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Albert,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

El divendres, 14 d’abril de 2017, a les 11:27:37 CEST, Daniel Stone va

Post by Daniel Stone
The wiki also says that the sole purpose of fd.o is for X Window
System desktops, and that source code is often maintained in CVS and
Subversion. :\ It could use some work.
actual XDG standards. It's a very bad way to reach quite a lot of our
member projects.

Ok, could i suggest that maybe you need a list so you don't need to chase
projects one for one when you intend to introduce such drastic changes in the
future again?
Because the only thing you're doing is offering excuses, which i'm not
interested in, i'm interested in solutions.

I'm every bit as uninterested as you are in you are in assigning blame. I
think a separate list for project-wide issues is a very good idea, and I'll
set one up as part of contacting all the projects and finding concrete
points of contact / community responsibility. Unfortunately this has been
somewhat delayed by travel, but we're getting there.

Cheers,
Daniel

[mdn]

I am back, sorry for the wait.

Post by Daniel Stone
Hi Albert,

Post by Albert Astals Cid

Post by Daniel Stone
Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
from it.

Can you clarify why do you think the sysadmins have the right to impose such a
big change on the rest of the community without prior consultation?

freedesktop provides services to communities, including mailing lists,
bug trackers, Git hosting, web hosting, etc etc. We as the admins
already have to intervene to remove legally-impermissible content
(e.g. when someone uploaded third-party proprietary code they weren't
allowed to distribute, or when links to child pornography make it into
mailing list archives) from these services, because the responsibility
falls on fd.o as the provider rather than the more diffuse individual
communities.

Besides the non free software part links about cp are already managed in
the law, it's illegal end of story, most of what a the CC introduce is
already in the law and part of it isn't in the law for good reasons.

But if someone misbehave their is nothing in reality that will not make
that person misbehave.
It's not either your fault or anyone's fault, it's just maybe the result
of discussion that went haywire between two people or because the said
person had a terrible day, etcetera.

A coc isn't either protecting you from any direct or indirect backslash
and it was already seen with the drupal community when they went against
their own coc to remove one of their developers.

Post by Daniel Stone
Our original plan was to offer the CoC (pre-made template text and a
point of contact) as an opt-in, where projects could contact us and
add it themselves. But, as with the above, behaviour of the individual
communities reflects on fd.o as a whole. We aren't a diffuse/random
hosting site like GitHub, but instead work with individually-selected
projects. With this comes responsibility on both sides: we cannot just
wash our hands of the behaviour of the member communities.

Indeed, but you won't/can't force people to change.

Post by Daniel Stone
We did discuss this with a number of people, but with over 100 quite
diffuse projects (some active, some stagnant, some abandoned, some
unclear), and running fd.o not being a paid activity (or even the
primary project we work on) for any of us, we weren't able to reach
everyone. My apologies if you/Poppler feel excluded, or imposed upon,
but you have my full attention now. :)
What I'm trying to do over the course of this week is get in touch
with all of the member projects and walk through this with them. Both
seeking their feedback, and establishing points of contact, so the CoC
and enforcement are actually driven by the communities themselves,
rather than being imposed from on high. I know that might seem at odds
with how this has been announced, so again please take my apologies
for that, but we are trying to do the right thing.
The text itself of the CoC is not set in stone, and if you have any
particular issues with the text that is there, it'd be great to get
any feedback so we can work on it. Just as our communities are living
and evolving creatures, so too is the CoC.

If it's not set in stone, please then don't use it.
If you insist on one then may I suggest:
https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC
or
https://git.postactiv.com/postActiv/postActiv/blob/master/CodeOfConflict.md
or
https://www.titanians.org/the-bill-of-ethics/

I wish you all a good day.

Freely
BERNARD

Post by Daniel Stone
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg