<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/18/16 11:35 PM, Adam Števko
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:777D9D11-922E-4186-9E76-D79FEF81F945@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hello,<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br>
I again am sorry this text is not on Wiki, but on site, put there
unchangeable.<br>
I would like it to be moved away from OI site and put to Wiki for
editing for the time being.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:777D9D11-922E-4186-9E76-D79FEF81F945@gmail.com"
type="cite"><br class="">
As part of a larger effort at providing a more formal governance
structure for the OpenIndiana project, I’d like to announce on the
behalf of OI developers the adoption of an OpenIndiana Code of
Conduct. The draft text for this new document can be found at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.openindiana.org/community/code-of-conduct/"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openindiana.org/community/code-of-conduct/">http://www.openindiana.org/community/code-of-conduct/</a></a>.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="entry-content">Once approved, </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Approved by who?<br>
To approve it, you firstly got to form named council and have norms
for decision making in it.<br>
So there is no one to approve it, there should be named body that
approves it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="entry-content">this document will provide community
guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative
place for any person who is willing to contribute to the
OpenIndiana community. It applies to all “collaborative space”,
which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).
<h2 id="core-principles-and-expectations">Core principles and
expectations:</h2>
<ul>
<li>We are respectful and appreciative towards peoples work,
time, and effort.</li>
<li>We are tolerant of the right to have opposing views.</li>
<li>We recognize our public actions determine the public
perception of the project.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Rule number 0 is being on topic. Only subrule of it is 'personal'
things, because they represent a form of going offtopic. Going
Offtopic, together with 'personal' things is "Trolling", known on
internet by that name for a long time.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="entry-content">
<ul>
<li>Participants must ensure their language and actions are
free from personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.</li>
<li>When interpreting the words and actions of others,
participants should always assume good intentions.</li>
</ul>
<h2 id="what-will-not-be-tolerated">What will not be tolerated:</h2>
<ul>
<li>Open hostility, and or abusive language.</li>
<li>Repeated complaining (rehashing) of closed (decided)
issues.</li>
<li>Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or
participate in a pattern of behavior which could be
considered harassment.</li>
<li>Filibustering – (replying with negative or opposing
viewpoints to every post in a mailing list thread).</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
This whole 'not tolerated' section is void and made with unprecise
language.<br>
It is simply not needed having in mind 'Core principles' section'.<br>
In this state whole section should be deleted.<br>
It is not precise and it is much too open to all kinds of misuses
and represent a threat to the community as a whole, because many and
all trolls will misuse it for waging private personal wars.<br>
<br>
People are expected to be people like they are, not to have one face
on internet and another in Real Life, sometimes it is needed to
express itself in a way that this "Not tolerated" part will damage.
<br>
"Not tolerated" part is damaging community because it is negative
not precise, have in mind "too pinky" way of looking at the things
and world is not made of "Pink unicorns" to be ideal and nor it
should be.<br>
<br>
Revisiting old issues and reopening bugs is important freedom to
have, including being positive and negative as one likes. <br>
One can not make people better and if filtering people by having
only "Pink unicorns" in the community, that would just not be
possible.<br>
Scratch whole section to dust and start building on something
positive as needed.<br>
And actualy 'not be tolerable' is NOT in a sense of OI community.<br>
OI community should BE tolerable it is against community to list
'not torelable' list of thigs as a "goals".<br>
OI goals are NOT searching for "not tolerable" things, but
perfecting those that are good.<br>
<br>
So no "Witch hunts"needed - "not tolerated" part promotes "witch
hunts" and that is _very_ bad for community. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="entry-content">
<h2 id="reporting-violations">Reporting violations:</h2>
<ul>
<li>Violations of the CoC should only be reported to the
maintainers via direct messages on IRC, twitter, or via
E-mail and will be handled confidentially.
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is regarding - mailing list maintainers , - IRC channel
operators , - Source code repository maintainers and can not be
intermixed between.<br>
Since not the same people are expected to have all roles it would
stop manhunt on all levels of community.<br>
<br>
I don't think any part of managing such requests should be held in
private in a sense that inner circle of community can't see what is
going on.<br>
OI is not a secret private society to held seret meetings and have
rituals in dark roooms.<br>
As much as things could be held in open, they should and I see very
little number of things to be held in closed, actually.. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="entry-content">
<ul>
<li>
<ul>
<li>Neither reporters nor reported persons will, or should
be, made public.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is part of "secret police" question, where it is infusing FUD
instead of discussing things in public, that is alway better, to be
transparent and open.<br>
<br>
Doing thing openly (like open source and free software used) have
many benefits and it is the same for community work.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="entry-content">
<ul>
<li>
</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="sources">Sources</h4>
<ul>
<li>Adopted from the <a
href="https://project-fifo.net/coc.html">Project-FiFo Code
of Conduct</a>.</li>
<li>Further inspiration derived from the <a
href="https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html">FreeBSD
Code of Conduct</a>.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't know for anyone's inspiration, but it is not needed here to
mention direct competition in a way that we are not part of FreeBSD
nor ever will be, unless all BSDs accept copyleft licensing/CDDL .<br>
Advocacy can't cope with constant reminders of another projects, I
think they have enough links on internet to point ot their site(s)
already.<br>
OI things should be at least original because in OS distribution,
being original is a main thing. (Separate from other things and be
better).<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>