>Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended >party >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately see that your 3 step CoC might not terminate. You are an imposter! >imagine that the abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed >heinous acts against a community member. You can't immediately jump to the worst case scenario to discredit the code of conduct. In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority. ________________________________________ From: Konstantin Shegunov <kshegu...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 9:04:12 PM To: Martin Smith Cc: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith <martin.sm...@qt.io<mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote: You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of conduct is that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution. Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended party may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text. But that isn't the implication. Then I apologize, this is how I interpreted it. The implication is that a mistreated person can take the actions you have specified, and the result can be that the mistreatment, real or not, is not resolved. The proposed text can't guarantee resolution either (see below for a reductio ad absurdum). Active contributors who abuse others should be treated the same as inactive contributors who abuse others. What would be done would of course depend on what the abuser did. I suppose the abuser (active contributor or not) would be informed as to what he/she did wrong and would be told to stop doing it. Say we adopt the CC (basically the proposed text) and imagine that the abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed heinous acts against a community member. As far as I can tell this is very unlikely, but humor me for a second. As QtC employees' main work is on the Qt project, i.e. writing patches, committing features, writing docs and such, how would is this proposed committee to enforce the CoC? Are they going to plead that the person is taken out of the project, and wouldn't that mean that, basically, he/she can't be an employee for the QtC anymore? And to drive it home, say the head troll had a mental breakdown or something what is the committee to do? Take over the QtC? Just as I said before, I'm not against a CoC in principle. I'm against the CC's text which is quite invasive and badly written. To me KDE's CoC is much more practical in the case of the Qt project. Exactly. Without a CoC, we have no laws, so the implication is we don't consider any behavior an offense. Laws are bit more complicated than a statement of how people *should* behave. There's also separation of power, mandates, enforcement and laws that control how laws are made. Also there's hierarchy between the laws themselves in case they are in conflict. I suggest we don't venture into that. It's not what binds us to this community to begin with. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
