On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:06:02 +0100 Tom Hacohen <[email protected]> said:
> Thanks for your comments. > > On 19/06/15 10:53, tokiclover wrote: > > I pretty much like this *light* code of behaviour that gives this > > light hearted feeling while insisting on the kindness and patience! > > rather than a set of rigid rules that absolutely nobody can enforce > > anyway. > > > > Still, anybody should be held accountable for his/her behaviour, > > with high standard for her/his contributions. And this is lacking on > > the current CoB which should have at least a few more practicable > > guidelines for developpers to ensure healthy projects. > > Could you please elaborate? We linked to the commit and code guidelines > (high standard for contributions) and had a few points about behaviour. > What else, for example, would you include? > > > > > Please, do *not* take this in the wrong way. I am only putting it > > this way because when some people feel some power, they can be > > compelled to... abusing it to satisfy some egostical pride or agenda. > > > > Without resorting to a kind of code of conflict[1] a la Linux kernel > > which ricks battle of power and influence with a Techincal Advisory > > Board that would play the Court/Judge. > > We currently have raster to be the judge, I think that's fine for now. > If you strongly disagree, we could maybe consider forming a board, but I > think that it's unnecessary at this point. Especially since we are a > relatively (to the Kernel) small community. if a day comes we ever really need that - we can evaluate it and do what is needed. i'm definitely a fan of "solve the problems you have, not the one's you don't" :) well ok - with code i like to over-engineer because i realize that a restricted design will make it hard to "fix" in future to do more without breaking evereything. this is not the case with social things. :) > > A light and practical CoC is far better for a community to ensure that > > conttributors are held to high standard and accountable for/to the > > community. See [2] for some insights on this subject. > > > > The developers section also applies to contributors (where possible), > but also, as importantly, to reviewers who review these contributions, > so they can steer contributors to the right path. > > I hope I didn't misunderstand any of the points raised. I'll read [2] in > depth soon. > > -- > Tom. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
