3 ms·
You're not the only GNU maintainer who is unsatisfied with Stallman's response. GNU Octave also stands with Guix here, and I think I speak on behalf of at least
by jordigh 8y ago
You're not the only GNU maintainer who is unsatisfied with Stallman's response. GNU Octave also stands with Guix here, and I think I speak on behalf of at least of a few other co-maintainers. Maybe we should be drafting our own CoC.
- civodul 8y agoGood to hear; I know of other GNU maintainers who feel the same, I don't think we're isolated. FWIW, Guix adopted the Contributor Covenant and it's worked great for us—our reaction to incidents is firm but it has never been "punitive" contrary to what RMS suggests.
- enriquto 8y ago> Maybe we should be drafting our own CoC. As an octave fan, please don't; at least publicly. Do you really need to push this? Do you have actual harassment cases among your developers that such a "punitive" CoC would help to solve?
- jordigh 8y agoIf you object to a CoC (which is really the same damn thing as the GKCC, what kind of "punitive" measures can we take, really), then I really don't want you around the Octave community. And yes, we've had our share of unpleasantness. My objection to the GKCC is that rms is failing to address the actual problems such as the disadvantage of certain groups. I think CoC detractors think that the CoC is going to be used to unfairly punish them in ways they don't understand but, (1) there really isn't much punishing that could be done even if we tried and (2) every community already has an implicit CoC. Writing one only makes it explicit. Wouldn't you rather know what the rules are instead of having to guess? Right now the rules already exist, but you might not know about them.