Re: Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

Trevor <address@hidden> writes:

> Dan Eble wrote 05/02/2020 14:25:26
> Subject: Re: Code of Conduct
>
>>On Feb 5, 2020, at 05:45, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Having a CoC gives us a set of guidelines, a process and a set of
>>>  corrective actions to take to help keep things nice.
>>
>>I prefer the implicit good-neighbour agreement we have now.
> So do I! Definitely!
>
> It's remarkable how well it has worked and how free of animosity it
> has been.

There have been frictions over the years on both developer and user
lists and I removed myself from participating on the user list a number
of times over periods of probably about a month's length.  And it's not
longer than about a month ago that my wording of a reply that I spent
half an hour composing from manual entries and example code earned me
more the equivalent of a "fsck you" than "thank you".  So from my side I
cannot state in good conscience that there would be no leeway to
improve.  But that's not a matter where a committee could provide
reasonable help or relief.

Making the best of what we have available to our disposal is in the end
all we can hope to do, even though there are a lot of times I'd wish I'd
be able to do better.  As such I am grateful for people whose first
thought when the results are less than impressive is support and
mitigation rather than punishment.

-- 
David Kastrup