From owner-freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Thu Mar 8 20:06:25 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A33F2BB27 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 20:06:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.io-tx.com", Issuer "AlphaSSL CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4CB16E172 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 20:06:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by io-tx.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w28JqR1b066931 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:52:27 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:52:27 -0600 (CST) From: Ted Hatfield To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has a politics problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20180308153450.CE84CD5ABC@emkei.cz> <20180308170701.xsel5q3anidpymk6@fifo.io> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.3 at io-tx.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on io-tx.com X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 20:06:25 -0000 On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Federico Caminiti wrote: > 2018-03-08 14:07 GMT-03:00 Mike Oliver, KT2T : > >> >> Surely, there is overlap among those who want to use FreeBSD and those >> who are embarrassed for the project given how the CoC has been received, >> and in that overlap group I can see how some would perceive the CoC as >> unnecessary, unnecessarily specific, or insulting. >> >> > I myself am also concerned about this. The initial intention to create a > Code of Conduct was announced in the " freebsd-announce" mailing list (1) > but no further discussion seems to have taken place anywhere. There is a > "conduct" mailing list (2) which sound like it was created for a discussion > of this sort, but as of today (08/03/2018) it seems to be empty. Like many, > my main point of contention is that this was decided behind closed doors > and there was no public discussion on the matter. > > What was the rationale for choosing Geek Feminism Wiki as guide on how to > implement a code of conduct and not for example, the KDE Code of Conduct > (3) or the Contributor Covenant (4) ?. The last one seems closer in spirit > to what is trying to be achieved here, without inflamatory and/or > politically charged language. Maybe there are non-arbitrary reasons behind > the creation of this new CoC, but since it was discussed in private, we > have no way to know. > > [1] - https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-announce/ > 2016-January/001691.html > [2] - https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/conduct/ > [3] - https://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/ > [4] - https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > I've read the published Code of Conduct here: https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html all of the provisions listed appear to me to be reasonable. Rather than get all bent out of shape about the fact that it's based upon the example policy at "Geek Feminism" I would like to hear exactly what's in the code of conduct you object to. Ted Hatfield