[Foundation-l] Do we need a Code of Participation?
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Nov 13 08:57:28 UTC 2007
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 11/9/07 2:02 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>> on 11/9/07 2:39 AM, The Cunctator at cunctator at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> This is sad and pathetic. And I mean "pathetic" in the sense of
>>>> "arousing sadness and compassion".
>>>> A code of conduct tells people "We don't trust new people, and we have
>>>> problems with each other, and we don't know how to build a community."
>>> Cunc, a code of conduct is a set of guidelines - like road signs - they help
>>> people to go in the right direction. The Community that was built was going
>>> in the wrong direction; we're trying to correct that. Keep the faith.
>> I think there is more to this than Cunc's curmudgeonly reputation.
>> The danger is that we do have people who will treat the proposed Code of
>> Conduct as a hammer for beating newbies. A code put in those terms
>> would be as meaningful as shrinkwrapped software that tells me that I
>> can't transfer the information to Cuba.
>> I support the idea of a series of principles that we all hold dear, but
>> not any kind of bureaucratic structure to support them.
> That's commune talk :-). Ray, by "bureaucratic structure" do you mean
I'm talking more about structures that elaborate rules to make sure that
everything is specified, or signing pledges, or binding agreements. We
make sure that the principles are well distributed, and that everyone
knows about them, but we don't rub them in their faces. One of the
things that the ten commandments had going for them is that they were
short and to the point. What's more effective, four words saying "Thou
shalt not steal," or a library full of law tomes to explain what
stealing is and what to do about it.
More information about the foundation-l