<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 07/23/16 11:27 AM, Peter Tribble
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 6:30 AM,
Nikola M <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:minikola@gmail.com" target="_blank">minikola@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div>On 07/22/16 02:00 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Overall, I'm happy with most of this.
It's about the right length, as well.</div>
</blockquote>
</span> What are you actually happy with? </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm happy with the original document that Adam posted,
with the caveat that I<br>
</div>
<div>think the reporting mechanism can and should be
tightened.<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">I can say I could be
happy with the first affirmative part, that is from the
time of original posting changed, but not the second
part with restrictions and secrecy.<br>
<br>
Have you seen working version at:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31391953"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openindiana.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31391953</a><br>
because document is edited in open, not in closed and on
Wiki instead on the site.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Indeed I have. Your modified version is
flawed in the following ways:<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I hope I explained in good words why changed version is much better,
I thank you for contribution and please add more if you want more
things to add etc.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">1. The title has been changed. "Code of
Conduct" is the normal term,<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">use it if that's what is intended<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Normal term is what we choose to use.<br>
We have SMF, for example and that is "normal term" for us, so we
have a freedom to call it how ever we want. So there is no "normal"
term at all. is using Linux "normal", then what we are doing here
then? We can differ and will.<br>
So we can choose whatever wanting, and I have put "Core Principles
and Expectations", because it more suits the need, beter explains
use and contents and yes, it is "different" from the rest of the
world that is "normal" and using Linux...<br>
Of course if someone thinks web page link could be differently named
or also putting it by another, more known name, too, it can be done,
but no, we don't have to be "the same".<br>
Oi already have myriad of differently named terms that use similar
but not the same thing as other systems. <br>
We need to have a space to inovate including out own terminology and
meaning of it etc.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">2. It conflates operational procedures
and etiquette with conduct. (There may be<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">a place for a "how we operate"
document; this is not it.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is right. Good that you mention it.<br>
Core Principles and Expectations (CPE) (or CoC) is there for
community, as general showing fo values that can be used to benefit
community en large, precisely avoiding unneeded restrictions,
wording that could turn people away or even managerial parts.<br>
<br>
Actually when having good text there that makes managerial
(operating) document(s) much easier to organize and puts less work
on shoulders of operating people on all levels.<br>
Separate documents can describe operations, yes and there is no room
for pushing them into this document.<br>
<br>
Actually, CPE provides good environment and positive attitude
stating values. It is unfortunate actually to even mention any
procedures in it, but they are mostly relaxed for operations to have
less work to do and that EVERY community member, even not yet member
of some working group or active member, can use CPE to operate
communication in most positive way right ahead.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">3. It does not make clear what is not
tolerated (the list Adam gave covers the<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">problems we see much more accurately)<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is absolutely need for such harsh wording in Openindiana
community, nor turning against people.<br>
_Everything is tolerated_, if it does not conflict with Core
Principles and Expectations.<br>
And it is very easy to find out if something conflicts, comparing
with CPE.<br>
<br>
As things are best to be growing organically, they are much better
as gaining more experience, also people react much better to
positive and supporting principles and create healthy environment. <br>
<br>
It is obvious that as put firstly, "nontoleration" part is turned
against itself, too and (forgive me if I am repeating myself) whole
that nontoleration section is Trolling heaven and can't come back.<br>
<br>
Nontoleration and exclusiveness can't mix with toleration,
inclusiveness and OI community. Just seeing "non tolerable" part in
text induces wrong feeling that contributing is all about power. It
is not, it is about principles.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">4. It does not provide a mechanism to
manage violations. Such a mechanism<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">should be confidential. (Confidential,
not secret.) Why?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Of course it provides it. For starter there are NO 'violations' as
term so no need to manage them. <br>
Hence, less chance to even have any problem.<br>
<br>
'Discouraged behavior' part should actually not be needed, and
document can function nicely without it, but it mentions few things.<br>
<br>
And 'Managing misuse escalation' is what you are looking for. <br>
It separates that channels of communications can have somewhat
different requirements, that there could be groups to self-organize
and that there are many different maintainers of various parts and
channels, that should manage those parts.<br>
So no centralization per se and no bumping one's head all the time
by the same people, no policing, Everything nicely explained and
allowing everyone to take a role in the community at any time, like
community of equal it is.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"> a. Problems can become acrimonious and
turn into a flamewar<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Discussing is never a problem. Discussing a lot is also not even a
problem.<br>
Complaining about a lot of discussion and talking IS a problem and
is discouraged.<br>
Saying "stop talking" is not benefiting community, because it
supports doing things in closed doors.<br>
<br>
Following CPE will never go to problems, because staying on topic
and not falling into personal things, quickly solves it. Everyone is
always free to propose solutions including solutions to compromise
and/or more quickly find important points on topic.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"> b. People should be comfortable to
report problems without fear of retribution<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Completely agree. That is why they should do that fully _in public_
and not secretly, beside closed doors and not actually seeing what
is going on!<br>
<br>
I don't know what 'retribution' one would be need to be feared
from?? In an open and cooperative community, even inducing word
'fear' (as part of FUD..) is unneeded.<br>
One can fear of something he/she do not know, but if everything is
in open there is nothing to be fear of.<br>
That is exactly why Free software and Open source is releaving
anyone of fear of inclusion of malware etc, the same way having
nice, public talk is way better.<br>
Working things in shades is also against growth and bigger inclusion
of people.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEgYsbEbq4e6mH-7yj5ujsZWt4LSA9moaSi=GvrHO5hz_PmZbQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
5. It fails to provide adequate attribution<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I didn't uderstand firstly what you meant by this. Attribution is
in distribution code contribution logs.<br>
<br>
I suppose you are thinking about other communities and their
documents.<br>
Well, yes, we have our own community, and attribution parts in
program source or articles and is maybe good thing for
cross-platform cooperation,<br>
but this is one of core OI documents and we really don't need to <br>
- copy things from others without need<br>
- point to competition like we can't do it by ourselfs<br>
- Attribution belongs to those writing it in OI and document as it
is does not reuse any part of other distro's documents like it is
now. It is rewritten so it is NOT derived work, and that is also
important to mention.<br>
- Making sure people see we are as community capable of making our
own documents, for being unique community that others can look upon
:)<br>
<br>
If it is needed for hitorical reasons or something, there are always
memoires, personal blogs, I dont' feel the need for that atm, <br>
but i feel the need for the contribution. :)<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>