xdg Digest, Vol 157, Issue 3

Philipp A. flying-sheep at web.de
Tue Apr 11 11:40:22 UTC 2017

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> schrieb am Di., 11. Apr. 2017 um
13:26 Uhr:

> Constructive feedback on the specific form and wording of the CoC is
> more than welcome. What would be even better is if you're able to
> point to the experiences of other communities, the discussions they've
> had, and where they landed. The exact wording isn't irreversibly set
> in stone, and I'm sure we'll want to be tweaking it over time. What is
> set in stone is that we (the fd.o admins, who unanimously approved
> this change) are committed to this CoC, and will not be turning back
> from it.

This is great news, as this way, the identified problems with its wording
can be actually used to improve upon it. I was probably too much in the
“software license” mindset, where a layman can’t dare to change the wording
without fucking up. But actual feedback to improve this, based on other
communities’ experiences? Sign me up.

For one, I’d like to point to the Rust community, which also uses a CoC
that begins similarly to, but is less problematic than the CC:

Regarding constructive criticism: The CC’s “Enforcement” paragraph is
highly problematic. Its intent is clearly to foster accountability and
prevent harrassers going unscathed due to being buddies with a mod. But it
only protects the reporter, while nothing protects the (maybe wrongly)
accused. I want to see a more “innocent until proven guilty” mindset
reflected in a CoC. Accusing people shouldn’t be a powerful tool for
harrassers, and witch hunts should be discouraged.

Best, Philipp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20170411/4c263cfd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the xdg mailing list