On 9/5/15, 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?
Consensus, of the people participating in the talk page of the draft,
in the typical Wikimedia definition of the word (Most arguments have
.puttered out, and a super-majority of those participating seem to
have settled on some agreement).
Since arguments seem to have mostly stopped, and most of the people
participating on the talk page seem to be in agreement, several people
felt that its time to bring this back to the larger community for
comment before asking the larger community to approve. And thus here
we are.
probably not, because i did maybe two unimportant
commits for kiwix.
Well you're sending email here. That's participation. Your arguments
will influence people, and as a result may change the course of what
the wider community decides.
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
?
I feel like this is mixing up the question of whether we "need" a code
of conduct, with whether we will get a code of conduct.
Whether we need a code of conduct is a complicated question, that has
been debated quite a bit already. I do not believe this is something
that is quantifiable (Or if we are tying the CoC to some sort of
quantifiable goal, then we are doing it for the wrong reasons).
Whether we will get one (or to put another way, under what criteria
will we consider the proposal to adopt a code of conduct a success,
and actually adopt it), is a different question. My opinion would be
to have something along the lines of having a vote, and if 75% of the
people who decide to participate support it, then its considered
adopted. Although I'm sure people will argue back and forth about the
procedures for this and people are talking about it at
Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft#Next_steps.
--
-bawolff