Re: Feedback on the GNU Social contract and new wiki.gnu.tools.

[Andreas R.]

Hi Ludo,

> > Since it's obviously not an official GNU wiki would it be possible to 
> > change 
> > references of "the wiki for GNU Maintainers" to "a wiki for GNU maintainers"
> > and add a notice to that effect?
> >
> > Also, using the GNU logo is needlessly confusing. Those maintainers 
> > visiting 
> > already know what the wiki is for, and the general public might
> > mistake it for being endorsed by the GNU project.
> 
> I understand your concern, but consider this: we are a group of GNU
> maintainers setting up a service for use by GNU maintainers to work on
> GNU.  


But GNU, by policy, doesn't have a wiki. Furthermore, GNU maintainers working
on policies of GNU, as a whole project, is what is being discussed, but there
are no definitive answers or solutions yet. It's easy to interpret the
creation of a GNU wiki outside of GNU and then use that wiki to develop
policy as not being interested in having a dialogue and making progress
within GNU and simply doing what you please.

As things are, the wiki isn't being used to work on GNU, but to work on
GNU policy outside of the scope of the GNU project because it's not
inclusive of all GNU maintainers.

>In that sense, I think it’s fair to say we’re not misusing the name.

I have no objection to calling it a wiki for GNU maintainers, because
that's what you are, and that's what it is.

But, as things are, it might be interpreted as if is speaks for a community, 
which by optics alone would indicate the GNU community, which makes paragraphs
such as the following very worrying:

"This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also 
applies when an individual is officially representing the community 
in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include 
using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social 
media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online 
or offline event.

Is this mentioned community GNU?

Are the e-mail addresses mentioned @gnu.org addresses or @gnu.tools 
addresses?

The code of conduct was adapted from "Contributor Covenant", which 
by itself was not adopted by GNU because of its overly punitive nature.

Has there emerged a stringent need for more punishment, or why did
gnu.tools adopt a third party code of conduct over GNU's own Kind 
Communications Guidelines?

Like I said: the branding is needlessly confusing.

        regard,
        Andreas R.