Opening remark: While I did try to phrase this in the most accurate way
possible with the help of a dictionary, please keep in mind I'm not a
native speaker of English. My apologies for any misunderstanding which
may arise. There is no intent to offend on my side.
On 03.02.2015 17:11, Peter Stuge wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
this is the first time a part of the community
has decided how
other parts of the community should behave
That's not really the case here.
The code of conduct applies to
everyone in the community, not just "other parts of the community".
Granted. Let me replace "other parts of the community" with "themselves
and other parts of the community". This makes it more clear that one
part of the community makes decisions and the other part of the
community is expected to comply. It is kind of obvious that the
decision-making part of the community would comply with their own
decisions, and this is why I didn't mention them in my original statement.
draconian sanctions for any deviating behaviour.
Are you more concerned about how
the code of conduct has been brought
onto the agenda, or about the subject matter? It's hard to tell. :\
I am concerned with the combination of both.
I already mentioned my objections to parts of the Code of Conduct
earlier in this thread.
I also object to the way the CoC was presented. I would have been
totally OK with "this is a draft, please comment, then after the
requested changes have consensus and everyone agrees, let's make this
binding". Instead, we get a public announcement of a Code of Conduct
which implies that it is finalized already. Let me quote from the
associated blog post: "we are going a step farther and describing what
is unacceptable within our community with the coreboot Code of Conduct".
That doesn't sound like it's a draft or unfinished.
Having the arbitration team be disjoint from the team creating the Code
of Conduct would also have dispelled concern about one group of
individuals acting as policymaker, judge, jury and executioner. I happen
to have learned at school that separation of powers is essential and
this shapes the way I think.
A CoC with no editorial oversight at all is probably
worse than no CoC.
A CoC with no community backing is probably worse than no CoC.
I do not think that is true.
How would a CoC without community backing be any better than no CoC?
Please note that wiki accounts for editing are only handed out manually
by a select few people. This also means that even for an unlocked wiki
page (suggested by me as one of the possible solutions) there is in fact
And you can't claim to speak for the whole
I didn't claim to speak for the whole community. I didn't even claim to
speak for the majority. I just took Patrick's statement word for word
and replaced "editorial oversight" with "community backing". The most
interesting question here is whether editorial oversight is more
important than community backing.
Marc wrote in
his initial post: "Feel free to give feedback on the
policy". I sincerely hope that the CoC will only be in effect after
the feedback has been incorporated.
Maybe the code of conduct was always in
effect, just not formalized?
My impression is that there is/was some sort of universal agreement
about being reasonably nice to everyone who was interested in or wanted
to be involved with coreboot in some way. Occassional trolling on IRC
is/was also being dealt with.
However, formalizing a "be nice" policy would hopefully have resulted in
a text which focuses less on unacceptable behaviour and associated
Being nice also means not treating community members as potential
offenders. Reading sentences like "Behave." (yes, that is a complete
sentence from the Code of Conduct) makes me feel like an unruly teenager
getting a dressing-down from the headmaster.
TL;DR: IMHO the CoC needs to be discussed, revised and ratified before