Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/15/01:04:04
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>
>>> Having less than one person a month _is_ the problem.
>>>
>> Well, having less than one person a month is *A* problem, sure. It's
>> just a different problem than blocking spammers. The flood of
>> volunteers (ha!) didn't suddenly dry up when I changed the
>> registration method.
>>
> Maybe, a pivotal point was when all user accounts got invalidated and
> everybody(?) needed to re-register. To actually get access you'd be
> required to formally agree to
> http://www.geda-project.org/CodeOfConduct.html
> The passive-aggressive wording of this never publicly discussed document
> made me hesitate to sign-up when I skipped over it, but I did anyway.
> Shortly after, the wiki moved to a different server and all editor
> accounts got invalidated again. This time I read more closely what I was
> supposed to sign.
>
> It is hard to see, how most of the clauses remotely apply to working on
> the wiki. This begs the question, why it was deemed necessary to make
> approval of the code-of-conduct mandatory in the first place. I had no
> answer, but whatever reason I could come up with, made me feel
> uncomfortable. So I decided against a sign-up and thus stopped to
> contribute.
>
> ---<)kaimartin(>---
>
Hi Kai-Martin,
I think there is no "passive-aggressive" wording in the gEDA Code of
Conduct.
In the Code of Conduct I only see a list of pointers to decent and
pollite behaviour, the way I would like to be treated and spoken to.
As far as I understood, its sole purpose is to create an environment for
all participants in which they can feel safe to contribute to the best
of their ability.
Nothing more, nothing less, no hidden agendas.
I saw and still see no reason to discuss a template text from another
FOSS project with minor modifications to make it gEDA specific.
Maybe I misunderstood or misinterpreted your above wording.
Kind regards,
Bert Timmerman.
- Raw text -