couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CouchDB Developer Code of Conduct
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:34:23 GMT
Coraline Ada Ehmke (via Twitter) pointed me to this:

https://github.com/bantik/contributor_covenant

On 29 April 2014 17:54, Nick North <north.n@gmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer the flavour of the Django one. The first point is, "Be welcoming,
> friendly and patient" which feels to me to be about going out of your way
> to help people and making a positive effort to be good, and the rest is in
> the same spirit. The Debian one feels a bit less positive: "be wiling to
> explain to others", "try to stay on topic" etc. The Django one also gives
> examples of things you may be doing wrong, which can be helpful. But both
> are good - I certainly wouldn't vote against something that looked like the
> Debian one.
>
> Nick
>
>
> On 29 April 2014 16:36, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we ought to take the best bits of both and stick it in a wiki
>> page where we can collaboratively edit. There are a few things from my
>> notes that I likely want to add in addition to both.
>>
>>
>> On 29 April 2014 16:58, Joan Touzet <joant@atypical.net> wrote:
>> > Can I ask folks who prefer the Django one to the Debian one specially
>> > why? Is there something in Django's that's not in Debian's? Is there
>> stuff
>> > in the Debian one that people don't like explicitlly?
>> >
>> > For me, I agree the Django one is shorter and better formatted, but it
>> > seemed to cover less ground than the Debian one.
>> >
>> > -Joan
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Nick North" <north.n@gmail.com>
>> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:30:48 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CouchDB Developer Code of Conduct
>> >
>> > +1 on the CoC idea. I also like the Django example as a starting point.
>> And
>> > definitely +1 on no profanity - plenty of people are offended by it, and
>> > that in itself should be enough to rule it out. It also adds nothing to
>> the
>> > process of communicating ideas to the community.
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> > On 29 April 2014 13:15, Jason Smith <jason.h.smith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Mike Rhodes <mike.rhodes@cloudant.com
>> >> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 29 April 2014 11:18, Jason Smith <jason.h.smith@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Rule: No profanity
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Secondly, this is only a suspicion, but I think profanity (and
also
>> >> cocky
>> >> > > faux hatred), is a shibboleth indicating manhood and that we are
in
>> a
>> >> > > men-only club. It's like a loud fart or belch, or scratching your
>> >> groin.
>> >> > > Men generally curb that behavior in mixed company. It reminds
me of
>> >> bulls
>> >> > > locking horns to impress a mate. Maybe F-bombs and the anger it
>> stands
>> >> > for
>> >> > > are scaring some women away from software. Could be wrong, though.
>> >> >
>> >> > +1 to guidance against profanity, particularly casual. Crassness is
>> >> > unpleasant.
>> >> >
>> >> > -1 to casual sexism that women don't swear, fart or scratch their
>> >> crotches.
>> >> > I know you didn't mean harm, but this trap is too easy to fall into
>> and
>> >> is
>> >> > relevant here.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well anyway I'm glad there's some momentum (if not yet consensus) to
>> this
>> >> idea. Thanks.
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>



-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater

Mime
View raw message