[erlang-questions] Announcing Erlang.org Code of Conduct

Éric Pailleau eric.pailleau@REDACTED
Sun Mar 15 18:41:33 CET 2015


CoC is a strange name for something that looks to suck everybody.  Humour.Le 15 mars 2015 05:42, Tim Butterfield <timbutterfield@REDACTED> a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Sean Cribbs <sean@REDACTED> wrote: 
> > If we want the Erlang community to be one that welcomes newcomers of all 
> > types, appreciates the contributions of the non-privileged, and fosters 
> > goodwill, we need to be more specific than "Be nice to each other". At 
> > minimum, I would like to see affordances for people -- especially those who 
> > are not in the majority -- who have grievances, means to report and act on 
> > violations of the CoC, and how those in authority are affected by and held 
> > to the CoC. 
> I am a recent Erlang user.  Recently, I took a look at the contents of 
> this list via the Google Groups interface.  The first thread I read 
> was about the CoC.  My first inclination was not to feel welcomed, but 
> to flee.  No imposition is welcoming, especially ones requiring a 
> change in default MUA behavior.  I decided to give the group a chance 
> to see how this plays out.  Since welcoming new users was intended, 
> the following is how this new member feels about this. 
> As for being nice, it might be sufficient.  The 
> http://www.c-brats.com/ forum (about C-Dory boats) has this statement: 
> "No Rules - Just be nice!"  That was the most welcoming wording I have 
> seen.  For them, this has been sufficient for many years.  That forum 
> was created because the prior forum had too many rules.  Many members 
> of the old forum moved over to the new one and the prior forum is now 
> gone.  Rules may be necessary, though I do not generally consider them 
> welcoming.  Please do not consider the necessity as a welcome.  I have 
> also been other places where necessary rules have been imposed due to 
> behaviors.  Rules equating to 'be nice' do not trouble me, as I try to 
> be by default. 
> Wording matters.  I appreciated the word 'discouraged' on the item 
> about top posting, though this conflicts with it being an offense for 
> which one can be banned.  Something one can be banned for is 
> prohibited, not just discouraged.  It is similar for 'Try' for line 
> length, which can be effectively impossible as not all MUA are 
> conducive to this.  I use gmail.  I'm not sure anything other than 
> manually counting characters on every line is possible, especially 
> with the default proportional font. If necessary, I could use HTML 
> emails just so I could use Courier and count characters more easily. 
> I may accidentally leave in the character ruler line used for checking 
> line length.  My guess is that would be worse and not better for those 
> who prefer 74 characters lines.  Be careful what is required.  You 
> might get it along with the side effects. 
> The text in the second paragraph of the CoC seems directed at those in 
> a moderator role.  Or, is the intent that anyone can decide for 
> themselves to act as moderator.  I'm not sure I want to fit in that 
> category, especially as a new member.  Also, is it intended that these 
> discussions of infraction be public instead of private?  Reading that 
> text as a new member makes me wonder whether the CoC is for general 
> members or for moderators. 
> Overall, it would be nice to know the difference between 
> policy/prohibitions for which one can be banned and simple preference. 
> The current CoC seems to confuse these, at least, I hope it is just 
> confusion.  I would not want to risk being banned simply because I 
> forgot to override a controllable MUA behavior (top posting) once too 
> often. 
> Tim 
> _______________________________________________ 
> erlang-questions mailing list 
> erlang-questions@REDACTED 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions 

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list