Talk:Code of Conduct: Difference between revisions
Hailfinger (talk | contribs) |
Hailfinger (talk | contribs) m (Include a TOC) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Proposed rules for changes (that are open for discussion as well): Changes will be accepted when the "pros" seriously outweigh the "cons" (ideally there are none of the latter) and when the arbitration team agrees (since they will bear the load). | Proposed rules for changes (that are open for discussion as well): Changes will be accepted when the "pros" seriously outweigh the "cons" (ideally there are none of the latter) and when the arbitration team agrees (since they will bear the load). | ||
__TOC__ | |||
== Singling out "Harassment" == | == Singling out "Harassment" == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 14: | ||
'''Cons''': ??? | '''Cons''': ??? | ||
I (Carl-Daniel) think that Stefan's version of Patrick's proposal to instead label that list "Examples of behaviors we do not accept in our community" is a good idea and will not pursue the removal further. | |||
== Rephrase the 'check your motives' part == | |||
'''Proposal''': Rephrase "Check your motives: Using this code of conduct aggressively against other people in the community might also be harassment. Behave." to be [http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2015-January/079134.html friendlier] | |||
'''Pros''': The proposed version is a real improvement. | |||
'''Cons''': ??? | |||
Done. | |||
== Some words about assessing code quality == | |||
'''Proposal''': Add to the list in the chat etiquette something like: 'Code that you are changing wasn't perfect (or you wouldn't change it). However, try to avoid assuming that it was written by monkeys, or that it must have always been broken. It's likely that it used to work and it's likely that your new work is necessary and important because circumstances changed where the code didn't.' | |||
'''Pros''': Remind people that there's a coder behind the code. Assuming bad intent or stupidity (and doing so publicly) is as much a statement about the code as about the coder. | |||
'''Cons''': Is that micromanaging things? | |||
Latest revision as of 23:31, 7 February 2015
Our Code of Conduct is a pretty new work, and might benefit from some refinement in a couple of places. Let's discuss things here, so we can adopt sensible changes.
Proposed rules for changes (that are open for discussion as well): Changes will be accepted when the "pros" seriously outweigh the "cons" (ideally there are none of the latter) and when the arbitration team agrees (since they will bear the load).
Singling out "Harassment"
Carl-Daniel is unhappy with the list after "Harassment includes:", because it (as Patrick understands it) singles out that behavior, minimizing the others (that are just as horrible).
Proposal: Remove the paragraph "Harassment includes:" completely.
Pros: Less emphasis on "harassment", hopefully making it (more) clear that all of the unacceptable behaviors are horrible.
Cons: ???
I (Carl-Daniel) think that Stefan's version of Patrick's proposal to instead label that list "Examples of behaviors we do not accept in our community" is a good idea and will not pursue the removal further.
Rephrase the 'check your motives' part
Proposal: Rephrase "Check your motives: Using this code of conduct aggressively against other people in the community might also be harassment. Behave." to be friendlier
Pros: The proposed version is a real improvement.
Cons: ???
Done.
Some words about assessing code quality
Proposal: Add to the list in the chat etiquette something like: 'Code that you are changing wasn't perfect (or you wouldn't change it). However, try to avoid assuming that it was written by monkeys, or that it must have always been broken. It's likely that it used to work and it's likely that your new work is necessary and important because circumstances changed where the code didn't.'
Pros: Remind people that there's a coder behind the code. Assuming bad intent or stupidity (and doing so publicly) is as much a statement about the code as about the coder.
Cons: Is that micromanaging things?