couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Wenk <>
Subject Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Date Thu, 05 Jun 2014 08:49:50 GMT
Alex thanks for bringing up this idea (again like Joan already followed
this approach).

I see problems on both sides.

* reading a long text is exhausting - especially for non native speaking
people. So the danger that one will not read it is high.

* bylaws packed in a short text is dangerous because, why should one write
a long text, when one can write it also in a short text?

So what is the bigger problem? Assuming a person is not following the
bylaws / CoC (it's mixed in the thread above) and we have to "judge" her,
we can say "well, it is written in the bylaws / CoC. If you don't read
them, it's your problem. Please follow them."

Assuming a person is reading the short version and is not following the
bylaws / CoC and we have to "judge" her, he could say "hey I understood it
this way. If that's not correct, you should explain it better".

Imho the bylaws are good as they are. But I can imagine, that we "could
maybe" provide a not official shorter version with a very clear
explanation, that is just a summary and we never rely on the short version
but the long "official" one. Maybe the word "version" is not correct but it
should read "content summary".

I believe this would be very much work to make it really good. I personally
want to stay with the bylaws as they are and would be -0 on a "summary



On 5 June 2014 08:19, Joan Touzet <> wrote:

> Oh! One good essay about why "Don't do bad things" isn't enough:
> -Joan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joan Touzet" <>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 2:17:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project
> bylaws)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Shorin" <>
> > Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be
> polite.":
> Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from
> people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread
> as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.)
> Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
> community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
> be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
> people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
> people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
> I won't bring to bear on this list.
> This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still
> harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness.
> > P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
> See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer
> conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places --
> and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding.
> I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it
> will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a
> position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think
> polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties
> CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be
> explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list
> proves insufficient we need to grow it over time.
> -Joan

Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany

GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message