Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Janek Warchoł]

+1 to everything Harm said, and big thanks to Werner! (and Urs, who
co-organized Salzburg event)

Janek

sob., 8 lut 2020 o 16:52 Thomas Morley <address@hidden>
napisał(a):

> Am Sa., 8. Feb. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan
> <address@hidden>:
>
> > To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and momentum
> coming out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real danger of being
> shut down by toxic energy of the same kind that has led to the community
> attrition over the last 5-7 years.
> >
> > Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and watched
> this movie before.
>
> Hi Kieren,
>
> I'd like to fully agree to your statement about the positive energy,
> etc out of the Salzburg conference.
> It was a great event and great to meet so many people and great to
> (I'll stop continuing the list ...).
> Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!
>
> We discussed many plans, among them (without claim of completeness)
> - developer-tools (move to GitHub or similar)
> - implement stuff from openlilylib
> - CoC
> - finally migrate to guile-2
> - ...
>
> Though, those were plans, sometimes more declarations of intents.
> Ofcourse there was not the time to discuss the details.
> Home again, and making those plans public, not only more people got
> involved (with probably different opinions), but one had a better
> opportunity to think over the details.
> Thus I think it's natural, thoughts will diverge even more than
> already noticed in Salzburg.
>
> Let me pick a not so heated discussed point: developer-tools and share
> my own thoughts:
> While I still object going for GitHub, I changed my mind wrt to other
> tools.
> I reflected some of my reservations, coming from simply lazyness: I
> had to do hard work to get to grips with the current reviewing-setup.
> Thus I feared the need to do it again. Nowadays I think, it may be
> better to move away from Rietveld/sourceforge.
>
> On other plans even more objections may happen, see James' thoughts
> about the CoC.
>
> Again, I think it's natural to observe a broader, more diverging
> amount of opinions.
>
> We need to deal with this, without starting a flame-war, going toxic
> or whatever, but in a civil way.
>
> Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it
> is:
> It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
> should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
> Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
> those proposals?
>
>
>
> For me it's more a shame we are distracted by such discussions from
> doing our work.
> Although my time is very limited during the usual workingweek, I'd
> love to do more on the guile-v2-thingy or at least doing tests for the
> already done work, etc. Instead I write this mail (okay, a 'make
> test-baseline' runs in the background) or read through very long
> threads....
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm
>
> P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
> sending this.
>
>