[Scons-dev] Code of conduct?

[Bill Deegan]

An extra 2cents of opinion from me.. ;)

A few things a CoC would help with:
1) It could encourage more participation on the mailing lists. Open source
projects have been notorious for scathing responses to simple questions.
Surprisingly I've been at clients who have used SCons for years and never a
single member of their staff has asked a question on the mailing list.. I
was shocked.
2) If someone finds offense, we now have a place to point them to indicate
what is no OK
3) As Dirk said it gives us a "badge" which can be a checklist item for
many. (The reasonableness of this is of course entirely subjective)
4) On occasion in the past we've had project members who, for lack of a
better words, have lost their way as far as promoting a welcoming
community. It would have been very helpful to have such a CoC to point them
to.

Also, I can't see a downside to having a concise and simple CoC.  Worst
case it improves nothing.

I view a CoC similar to the license chosen by a project. Ideally there'd be
only a few different ones, widely recognized, each perhaps targeting
different types of projects.

-Bill


On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi William,
>
> thanks for your comments. See inline replies below...
>
> On 08.12.2015 03:08, William Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de <mailto:
>> tshortik at gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     On 04.12.2015 18:10, Bill Deegan wrote:
>>
>>         All,
>>
>>         Perhaps it's a good idea to add an official code of conduct for
>> SCons.
>>
>> http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-until-morale-improves/
>>
>>         The following site seems to provide a reasonable code.
>>         http://contributor-covenant.org/
>>
>>         Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>     here's my opinion:
>>
>>     - +1, in general. I don't mind having a CoC, and I fail to see how
>> following this "mainstream" (allegedly) pattern could harm
>>     the project.
>>     - For my personal taste, the yahoo example provided by Gary is too
>> long to read. Bill's and Russel's texts are shorter, and
>>     easier to digest for me as non-native speaker.
>>     - Simply adopting one of those options would be fine with me.
>> @WBlevins: I would be opposed to the idea of then adding more
>>     regulations on top. It's not much more than a badge, that says: "We
>> care." And when the time comes, we'll take actions and
>>     "care" without having to look up our CoC. We've done this
>> successfully in the past...
>>
>>
>> You are somewhat contradicting yourself here.
>>
>
> That's possible.
>
> If we show that we care based on our actions, then why do we need a badge
>> that says we
>> care?  Our actions should speak louder than a code of conduct.
>>
>>
> You're right, in principle. But for people that aren't too deeply involved
> with the development and mailing list management, this might not be obvious
> at a first glance. As Bill reported, people start to ask for a CoC when
> looking at a project. Maybe "badge" isn't the right word here, sorry.
>
> If we want a code of conduct, then that is fine. I guess my point was...
>> how does that change how we currently do business? Seems
>> that from your comments, it changes nothing.  Now we just have some words
>> on a page; not that I am opposed to this.
>>
>>
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm after. I don't want the CoC to change how we
> handle business. It should just reinforce that we "take action" if
> required. Having exactly laid out, in case of an "intervention", who is
> then talking to who, in which timeframe,...is already too detailed, for my
> taste.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20151207/93848882/attachment.html>