Code of Conduct (was Re: Bitfrost and dual-boot)

[Martin Dengler]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:04:57AM +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
> [+cc: Mako]
> 
> Selective quoting:
> 
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're on crack, Albert.
> ...
> > Albert, I'm not talking to you any more until you start making
> sense.

As a side comment, I think this reference to crack is significantly
different to the penultimate reference[1,2], although it might have
been intended to (humourously?) echo that prior reference.

> There is an alarming tendency to attack others on this project in
> public, as if that gives some credibility to the argument.

I don't see any such tendency, nor do I find what I've seen in the
last few months alarming.  Of course that's just me, and I'm "not no one"
in this project.

> Since our project is not only open but also for children, we should be
> doubly motivated to treat each other with the respect that we want to
> model for the children of the world. Would you say the same things if
> you were standing in the middle of a classroom of kids?

Laudable sentiment - with which I agree, but I worry that the tension
with "get the right information out quickly and eliminate FUD" (with
which I also agree) will be unproductive.  The solution to bad speech
is more speech, not less[3], and I think such a code of conduct might be
a solution to a problem this list doesn't have.  I'm talking about
devel@ specifically, though this probably goes (less well but still)
for other lists.

Often the people most in the know are those with the least time, and
if they have to bend over backwards to not offend any/all questions,
they'll respond (IMO) by communicating less, rather than "better"
(according to the Code of Conduct guidelines).

> I want to encourage ALL who see this email to read the Ubuntu code of
> conduct (once again, http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct) and make
> a personal commitment to abide by the spirit of it until such time as
> we formally introduce one.

I think everyone tries for this, as they know that if others find them
to be like an idiot/prat, people they care about communicating with
will pay less attention to them in the future.

Perhaps just making people aware of it and that a person as involved
as yourself considers it an important set of guidelines will get
you/us most of the benefit that making people sign it would (not that
I want to say that's what you're advocating, necessarily).

> Regards
> Morgan

Martin

1. http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-May/013763.html
2. http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-May/014798.html
3. LAURENCE H. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 834 (2d ed. 1988)
via
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200001/ai_n8887519/pg_18
quoted in
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200001/ai_n8887519
though there is a counterargument presented in the latter link (that's
not applicable here, I think).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080530/631e9185/attachment.sig>