Fully agree. Is it really necessary to dedicate ca. half of the proposed document to sections full of "enforcement", "ban", "violation", "danger", etc., which in the end leads to creating an overly dark and bureaucratic vibe?
Laszlo ________________________________ From: Development <development-bounces+laszlo.agocs=qt...@qt-project.org> on behalf of André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:39 PM To: Volker Krause Cc: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via Development wrote: > We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and this hasn't > led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against white people > or whatever other nonsense people seem to attribute to CoCs nowadays. The KDE CoC is *friendly*. It contains words like "considerate", "pragmatic", "support". It doesn't push someone's personal political agenda. This is a completely different beast than the Contributor Covenant that's about "enforcing", "reporting", "banning". I think we'd see much less heat in the discussion if the proposed Qt CoC had been based on the KDE CoC. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
