[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper
<sampablokuper at posteo.net> wrote:
> I am still new to this community, and am more of a lurker than a
> contributor.
>
> Many of the projects I am interested in have a code of conduct of some
> kind, typically based on the Contributor Covenant[0].

 yes, they do.  i've encountered several (and some Charters) including
the ASF's Charter and others.

> However, neither the arm-netbook mailing list nor the Rhombus Tech wiki
> has one, as far as I can see.

 huh.  never occurred to me before.

> Does anyone else here think it would be, on balance, a good idea to
> adopt a Code of Conduct, perhaps based on the Contributor Covenant[0],
> for some combination of: this mailing list; the Rhombus Tech wiki?

ok.  first thing that needs to be said: the wiki and the mailing list
are there as resources (run by me) whose sole purpose is to support
the goals of the EOMA initiative, for which (as the "Guardian of the
EOMA Standards") i and i alone am currently directly responsible.
"being nice" or "being inclusive" or "making people happy" is not a
direct target, or a direct or indirect measure of success, in any way,
as part of the responsibility of protecting the EOMA standards.

if there is to be any deployment of a Charter, it would be based
around the goal of supporting and protecting the EOMA initiative; it
would also be based on the Bill of Ethics
https://www.titanians.org/the-bill-of-ethics/ with no other document
being authoritative over or superceding it (ever).

> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
> and
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that
esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics.  my feeling is
that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is
not.

l.