Hmm. This gave me a lot to think about. Maybe just adapting the heavy handed CCP approach and just banning anything which might cause a problem isn't the right way to go after all... Hmm... I mean, if someone wants to smear this project, they can always find something trying to curate content doesn't help anyway, because experience shows that they then just invent stuff if needed. I mean, anyone with common sense will understand that a group with a multitude of members has a diverse range of opinions of which none are representative of the project goal itself. Not that 2021 has been the year in which humanity would have really proven to have a broadly present common sense, but still.
Maybe just a disclaimer somewhere to please TRY to avoid starting political debates on this mailing list?
On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:11:12 PM WEST lkcl wrote:
On August 24, 2021 11:07:00 PM UTC, "David Lanzendörfer"
leviathan@libresilicon.com wrote:
Well. I find this NCoC most suitable so far, because I fully agree with it...
i took a look, it seems to be a (amusing but relevant) anti-backlash reaction to the extraordinarily damaging blinkered toxic contributor covenant. the issue with "anti-anything" is unfortunately the focus on the "anything" bit.
i do like that it says "we assume everyone is adults" although this could be misconstrued as patronising, i am confident that people who understand the intent will get through that.
the Libre-SOC Charter is at its heart utterly simple:
- Always do good
- Never do harm
- the code applies 100% of the time
- Everyone knows the Code.
this again assumes "everyone is Adults" without actually spelling that out (because Adults don't *need* it spelled out).
it also assumes that everyone knows the difference between "good" and "harm" AGAIN WITHOUT SPELLING THAT OUT OR INSULTING PEOPLE by smashing them in the face with an ultra-toxic, patronising and self-sabotaging list of divisive self-defeating behaviours and characteristics, which, by definition, are always going to be incomplete.
by being so profoundly simple and yet defining the Charter in terms of "good" and "harm" it is extraordinarily flexible i.e. can be constantly analysed and adaptive.
you *know* when someone does (or does not do) or writes something that harms the project.
not because it was one of the f*****g stupid toxic proscribed behaviours, but because of the adverse impact the action (or inaction) had.
example: a case could be made that the recent discussion which triggered the demand for a CoC was BENEFICIAL to the project.
that although it irritated some people it actually covered quite important uncomfortable topics that people were nervous even to discuss, which could risk people being imprisoned or fined if they had not thought about the issues. [due to Asperger's i have no such fear]
just because you feel UNCOMFORTABLE does NOT equate to "The Project Has Been Harmed".
this is the risk of the stupid toxic CoCs: i cannot tell you how many times some dickheaded morons have judged me by their stupid proscribed list of behaviours, instead of seeing me as a human being. you can tell i am pissed off by such shortsighted judgemental behaviour, effectively abuse: it makes me both angry and sad at the same time.
in short i advocate that you consider thinking very carefully about a Charter and CoC. anti-this and anti-that statements will come back to haunt you, in short order.
l. _______________________________________________ Libresilicon-developers mailing list Libresilicon-developers@list.libresilicon.com https://list.libresilicon.com/mailman/listinfo/libresilicon-developers