On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:
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.
A code of conduct is only useful if there are multiple administrators who may disagree and decisions based on policy are needed. We have to trust Lkcl anyway.
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.
They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that sexism/racism/… is OK (limiting the contributions and thus creativity of affected people, see bill of rights 3.03). Accepting contributions regardless of gender/race/… does not mean accepting contributions regardless of quality. Criticism of meritocracy is mostly about meritocracies not being real meritocracies, e.g. by favoring the loudest over the silent, judging not on real merit but stereotypes, etc. (see [1]).
I don’t think creativity is the perfect basis for ethics though.
Regards, Florian Pelz