--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
liked some, didn't like others. "etiquette guidelines" doesn't have the same toxic punch as "code of conduct" is well-known for.
The word "code" in "code of conduct" does usually implies formal membership, so I thought it might be confusing to some people if the phrase became popular in closed circles.
no - it's well-known that "code of conduct" is a dangerous, toxic and highly unethical system of "control" over contributors. *i* didn't know that, so i did a comprehensive analysis here on the list about 6-8 months ago, and emphatically agreed with the assessment.
unfortunately there are many many projects that have absolutely no idea of the dangers of "codes of conduct" so continue to deploy them.
so the idea is to *specifically* identify those projects that have one of these dangerous "codes of conduct" in order to see if there is a correlation between harm done to developers and end-users and the use of such toxic documents.
Etiquette guidelines isn't perfect either, because samba technically actually has a page called "Etiquette" however that refers to trimming mailing list posts and not in any way how people ought to treat each other.
okaaay.... sooo.... that should probably go on a "/" mailing list / ML-etiquette
Perhaps "Contributor Conduct Guidelines"?
no. sorry. explained above.
liked
the idea of including the VCS and if it's libre-hosted (likewise for bugtracker) but *not* the wording you chose ("self-hosted").
I opted to separate it like that to make it more unambiguous, since there are two possible definitions of libre in regard to websites: open-source/free scripts and open-source/free server code.
hmmm.... *thinks*... is the distinction important? don't know. so it should probably go on the list. it might be statistically significant.
so a column "Web site source available / License" and now that i think about it "Documentation source available / License"
should be added
Most browsers provide no practical way to prove the source code belongs to the scripts actually sent by the server, without running them,
someone somewhere will run librejs to determine that
and because of this it might be argued that the server code should also be libre so that anyone could run an offline mirror.
more importantly they can *fork* the project.... but only if the full source of the web site server source is available and does not critically depend on proprietary components.
If we say arbitrarily that a website is libre it could mean one of three things: functions w/o script, open-source/free scripts, or open-source/free server code.
true.
The assumption is that if the server code is libre, then self-hosting should make by extension the repositories libre. Though, I suppose there would be nothing hindering someone from just omitting that part of the server code, on second thought. It's a tricky situation.
also i turned the table round by 90 degrees as i could see it getting far too long, and then broke them down into related groups. still some TODO.
Thanks, much less cluttered!
I use cut-and-paste to convert the spaces to tabs just now to clean the source.
yuck. please don't: i use 4-spaces-per-tab where other people will use 8. also, the reason for using spaces is because you can just put your editor into "replace" mode and the formatting remains stable.
please put it back.
Also, on a side note, I put urbit on there because they are unorthodox and because they have an unusually high ratio interest compared to people actually able to contribute, much like you would expect from RISC or KiCAD, but not 'another' replacement for apache.
hmmm, ok, cool. hmm... reminds me, established date should be added.
l.