Why don't you comment on any of the three links provided in the email
you're replying to? That seems like an obvious venue for concerns you
might have.
On 5 September 2015 at 17:32, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Matthew Flaschen
<mflaschen(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
There is consensus at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr…
that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few
sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other
ones). This allows progress without requiring people to monitor all
sections at once and lets us separate the questions of “what are our
goals here?” and “how should this work?”. After these sections are
finalized, I recommend minimizing or avoiding later substantive
changes to them.
The first sections being finalized are the intro (text before the
Principles section), Principles, and Unacceptable behavior. These
have been discussed on the talk page for the last two weeks, and
appear to have stabilized.
However, there may still be points that need to be refined. Please
participate in building consensus on final versions of these sections:
*
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr…
*
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft
If you are not comfortable contributing to this discussion under your
name or a pseudonym, you can email your feedback or suggestions to
conduct-discussion(a)wikimedia.org . Quim Gil, Frances Hocutt, and
Kalliope Tsouroupidou will be monitoring this address and will
anonymously bring the points raised into the discussion at your
request.
lol, consensus among whom, to what? i am against it (i'd love to send the
reasons in another mail though), do i count, and it is still consensus?
probably not, because i did maybe two unimportant commits for kiwix. i
would prefer if you would be so kind to define one measurable criteria for
the question "do we need a code of conduct", no matter if entry or success
criteria. e.g
* 50 volunteers from different part of the world saying that we need it
* 20% of committers want it
* after one year 20% more volunteer commits are done
other critieria like "people attending conferences", or "mails
written"
would be a bad idea, as the goal is to have more contributions, not more
conference tourists or mailing list tourists. what you think, matt, or quim
?
best,
rupert
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l