[Scons-dev] Code of conduct?

[William Blevins]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

I don't think this attitude is uncommon.  Many of my past coworkers view
interacting on forums and mailing lists as a "hassle", and they would
rather try to brute force since they "know" best. I'm not sure this can be
helped. unfortunately.

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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151208/e75c691c/attachment.html>