[erlang-questions] Announcing Erlang.org Code of Conduct
Fri Mar 13 17:27:49 CET 2015
On 03/13/2015 05:02 PM, Fred Hebert wrote:
> On 03/13, Loïc Hoguin wrote:
>> When you write down rules, you always end up with some unrelated people
>> trying to enforce these rules, despite it not being their job. This can
>> create unnecessary conflicts. A number of these people will also try to
>> enforce the word of the rules rather than their spirit.
> The rules also ask them not to enforce the rules on their own, so they
> might be bad enforcers, but frankly, that's a problem for then and
So if you try to enforce the rules they can get a warning, be moderated
and then banned?
Also would say "that's a problem for then and there" is a good quote
about when to introduce a CoC, but that's a little too late for that now.
> In any case, I don't understand how you can be worried about
> yet-non-existent rule-enforcers, but you are not worried by
> yet-non-existent rule-breakers. Something is not logical there.
We already have rule enforcers though. Top/bottom posting came up many
times already, to give an example. What happens by adding these explicit
rules is simply to comfort enforcers that what they already did is right.
>> There also doesn't seem to be in the CoC an explanation of the process to
>> either defend yourself (as you point out, not everyone is native English
>> speaker, so misunderstanding happen and they do quite regularly), nor is
>> there an explanation for how to redeem yourself.
> "To lift a ban or otherwise contend a regulative measure, contact
> Is all that's mentioned. I'm guessing they'll go at it case-by-case for
>> And as Benoit points out, it's a concern that we don't know who the
>> moderators are and how they are selected. I have seen way too often
>> moderators ban people on a whim due to personal issues rather than
>> rules being broken.
> See my response to Benoit.
It's not really reassuring. Basically it's all up to The Man.
More information about the erlang-questions