<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 07/21/16 02:31 AM, Michael Kruger
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b37ad9b5-3408-6627-c3aa-5538917fa68a@gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
Just as the formulation of a mission statement, road map, and a
core governance team help to show the community and world we
aren't just aimlessly trudging on in some unknown direction, the
CoC is simply another tool to provide structure and governance to
the project. It's goal is to help unite the community under common
goals, aspirations, and in this particular case, 'working
conditions'.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Take a look at provided evolved text here:<br>
<a
href="http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31391953"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31391953">http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31391953</a></a><br>
<a
href="http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=31391953&selectedPageVersions=5&selectedPageVersions=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=31391953&selectedPageVersions=5&selectedPageVersions=1">http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=31391953&selectedPageVersions=5&selectedPageVersions=1</a></a><br>
<br>
Openindiana Core Principles and Expectations - CPE (CoC) is not
statue nor it's role is to provide 'structure and governance'. Not
everything rotates over power. At the end of the day, people can be
asked, and politely, to think in a certain way, can not be forced
into it.<br>
<br>
Governance and power should not be the issue in a working community,
only dysfunctional elements need power and see power as important
thing, chasing new rules as a vessel to achieving power as a goal
and not something else.<br>
<br>
It is symptomatic that injecting false and bad and broad rules into
community, and actually not talking about rules text themselves, nor
discussing them, can not be looked at as positive behavior, but as
intentionally dragging all things along, without actual interest on
benefits of them but power to begin with.<br>
<br>
Rules in a community as stated should not rotate over excluding
people, but over better ways of including them, facilitating growth,
not destruction, and that is more important then policing any
possibly 'bad' one, with all problems related to actually enforcing
power over people.<br>
Proposed "not tolerated" part, being wide and easy to misuse, with
"cutting down" narrow-looking principle can't work in present state
of OI.<br>
<br>
Maybe most important things I would liek to point out are:<br>
- Putting things on site without discussing it first is bad behavior<br>
- Misusing public opinion without making sure it is not rigged
(poll) is a bad behaviour.<br>
- Activating "Core principles and expectations"/"CoC" without
previously having governing body is not possible.<br>
- Having governing body without firstly having named active
community members to elect it, is not possible.<br>
Having poisonous rules is worst thing that could happen to one
community.<br>
It is better to avoid future problems then to make a new ones
instead.<br>
<br>
<br>
Why these parts are bad and unacceptable by themselves:<br>
<ul>
</ul>
<blockquote type="cite">What will not be tolerated:<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Section name imposes that there are those who are asked to police
others and are in the position to segregate people into those those
tolerated or not. It is there as said to induce "fear and strength"
into bystander and not to provide positive look into community.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
Open hostility, and or abusive language.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
These terms are so broad that they are easily misused. Open
hostility can't be defined as and exact term (toward what, how to
recognize it opens pandora's box of misinterpretations. <br>
"Abusive language" also means nothing at all, because any language
people use, if it is on topic and can explain what people want to
say is acceptble in widest terms. Not everyone express their
thoughts in the sam manner, maybe sometimes, someone swear or
something, but not being able to identify exactly what this sentence
is about, does help not seeng it is useless. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
Repeated complaining (rehashing) of closed (decided) issues.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This again opens presumption that there is some "higher being"
knowing everything at any time and that "complaining" is a problem.<br>
Subset of complaining is a bug reporting. Or subset of bug reporting
is complaining. If one enters same problem or a bug day after day,
and others enter the same problem it is only positive to hear
complaining. <br>
<br>
What are closed issues? In a working community there is no putting
things under carpet. Again, calling that omnipotent power who by
itself knows what issues should be closed and what issues should be
not? Again it imposes ruling one against everyone else who "decides"
and carve things into stone, when exact opposite is needed, to be
flexible and evolving.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, </blockquote>
<br>
Again not defining anything, but entering more broad things like
"you have spit on the sidewalk, you are disrupting collaborative
space" or "you dont' wear pink unicorn t-shirt like everyone else,
you disrupt collaborative space", "you post too much
messages/code/text/ideas, you disrupt collaborative space" and so
on..<br>
Please DO disrupt collaborative space at all times, by being active
and sharing with people.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">or participate in a pattern of behavior
which could be considered harassment.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, loose terms meaning nothing: "you posted same sentence twice.
you posted same sentence twice " - you have pattern behaviour, on
the cross/fire with him/her! <br>
"Consider harassment" is again not only broad but also very bad to
include, because every single person can just make up "harrasment
this and harrasment that" and call it, and it can only present
endless debate or as seing in practice, it actually induces again
"higher being from above who know what" that would decide on
everything instead of people, because, you see, terms are vague and
broad to facilitate it. Being active or for or against something is
not harrasment.. But then why make a huge list of "not a harrasment"
over long time in a painfull process? Let ditch the unprecise word
in the first place.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
Filibustering – (replying with negative or opposing viewpoints
to every post in a mailing list thread).</blockquote>
<br>
Another one that is not being able to be defined by any exact means.
It can cripple community of their active parts where just simply
discussing a lot, where it is only a _natural_ thing to support
something or oppose something else is seen as the problem.<br>
It could be looked at like this: "There is the need for all rules of
mighty lord go smoothly" so making a vessel to just badly label
everyone else who oppose the "Mighty lord" "wisdom words". <br>
Or saying "you oppose dogmas too much often" oh no faithfull one,
you must burn".. Does not sounds like a community..<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Reporting violations:<br>
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.<br>
Neither reporters nor reported persons will, or should be,
made public.</blockquote>
<br>
I strongly oppose of doing things privately and silently, without
anyone knowing. It sounds like legalizing conspiracies and working
behind the backs. Also it presents great position for false
accusations all in the intention of possibly putting harm without
even need to know who's the one segregating people etc.<br>
<br>
<br>
All 7 broad things plus dissected here are actually poisonous to
Openindiana community.<br>
And that is what exactly being most poisonous is: supporting
poisonous 'rules' that would facilitate more poisonous acting in
the future, e.g. destruction to Openindiana community before it has
even started to grow.<br>
<br>
At the end everything boils down to not having a vision of the
future and not thinking enough of consequences.<br>
<br>
<br>
Those got replaced with:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Discouraged behavior :<br>
</blockquote>
So saying, these are not written in the stone, don't fear just pay
attention.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
No personal witch hunt, based on anything toward a person(s).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Rules are not against 'certain people', rules are not to be misused
to attack people (!)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
Advocating unsubscribing, other person removal, restrictions,
filtering or personal negative public announcements.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You should not do that, but recognizing no one can stop you to, it
is important to have it somewhere to be pointed to. Accepting people
are also changing themselves by themselves. Keep one's personal
decision to him/herself is a good manner. (Also recognizing that
can't be avoided at all times).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
Not recognizing critique as the source of inspiration to make
Openindiana better.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Maybe most important one - don't burn the messengers. Accept every
input as valuable contribution, even if it is missing the point, it
is valuable information of how people see things to make things more
smooth in the future. If it is repeated - it is better, it is seen
as recurring pattern to take into account, not to fight against it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Managing misuse escalation:<br>
<br>
Point new and existing community members to Openindiana
principles and expectations.<br>
Inform and message community members to self-regulate it's own
behavior.<br>
If you feel needed, consult others about ways of accepting new
and modifying existing behavior of community members.<br>
If you find it important, contact IRC Channel operators,
Mailing list administrator, Web site maintainer, Wiki editor and
Project maintainer.</blockquote>
<br>
This is how things are get done by the community, in open ,
gradually, fixing issues while walking incommunity, empowering
everyone to act and do things in managing. <br>
Having very low actual percentage of (if any) issues ever reaching
the level where they need to be dealt with.<br>
Also separating channels themselves with their own ways of doing
things with general 'rules'.<br>
it is also regared to be dealt 'per project' and there could be
large number of projects themselves.<br>
<br>
So in contrast of hard-line bumping hands on the desk, wasting
energy, there is kind act of recognizing benefits in anyone who is
positive toward project.<br>
<br>
This all reminds me in difference between the sword in the river
that is so sharp that cuts every leaf in half that comes floating by
the stream.<br>
Instead, sword should be so sharp that no leaf is cut, but floating
just beside the sword.<br>
<br>
So avoiding possible issues instead of continuously battling them or
making the new ones with no reason.<br>
That is true saver of the energy and time - being more open and
positive.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>