I am glad that what I understood from what you wrote wasn't what you
meant. I am sorry for the misinterpretation.
I couldn't agree more with your suggestion for the addition to point 4.
I will then proceed to ask my friends, and the friends of friends, who
are (but not only) related, or directly in LGBT groups and minorities.
Here is the most recent draft, with the current additions and redaction:
Alpine (AKA Alpine-Linux and Alpine-OS) Code of Conduct (CoC)
1. This CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and
enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for
any person who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful,
productive and collaborative way. It is especially not meant as an
exhaustive law, to automate moderation, or to prevent thinking.
2. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of personal attacks, doxing, and disparaging remarks of any kind,
including, but not limited to, racial, ethnic, gender-related,
religious, political, sexual-orientation related slur.
3. This CoC does not condone nor excuse censorship; or the exclusion of
those acting in good faith towards Alpine. Censorship should never
happen unless required by law.
4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
IRC etc.) or other Alpine events shall be construed as a violation of
this CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the Alpine community
moderators. Excessive lobbying or continuously engaging the Alpine
community on non-technical matters is a disruption of the collaborative
space and also a violation of the CoC.
5. Any amendment made to this CoC should be approved unanimously by all
Alpine developers (i.e. all people who have commit rights on the
6. The CoC is only about interaction with the Alpine community. Your
private and public lives outside of the Alpine community are your own.
Any issue arising outside of the Alpine community and not directly
technically related with the Alpine maintained software shall neither be
discussed nor arbitrated within the community.
On 5/12/2017 1:50 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>> The human rights were written, to the top of my knowledge, by white men
> Yeah, well, there was no Internet at the time, so it wasn't easy to
> communicate with people outside of your main circle. Apples and oranges.
>> It's not because we have predominant common factors that we will be
>> unable to comprehend or perceive challenges that others undure.
> It is exactly because we are not exposed to challenges that we may fail
> to perceive them. I have experienced this first-hand. Pretending to be
> able to foresee everything is just hubris; if we are going to have a CoC
> ready for when the community has grown and needs one, I'd rather have it
> done right.
>> We are all Humans, and the paragraph two is meant as a catch-all for
>> abuses towards Humans (if I remember correctly, awilfox was supporting
>> it, saying something along the lines of "no personal attacks, and
>> you're good"), no matter their individual characteristics.
> Sure, and that's fine with me, too. But is there any harm in running it by
> people who may have a different perspective, just to be sure?
>> Making it more explicit, and detailing each case is a role a refuse to
>> take, as it will exponentially increase the pain of discussing and
>> redacting the CoC;
> That's not what I suggested.
> I know you thought people would make that suggestion and so you felt
> compelled to address it, but as it turns out, I didn't. Please react to
> what I wrote, not to what you think I would write. And for the record,
> I agree with you on that point.
>> In short I'm not against asking around, but please be careful who you
>> ask: if this becomes the kind of long and complicated debate
>> attracting mobs of lobbyists from any side
> That is *also* not what I wrote. As a matter of fact, since it's something
> that really does endanger open source projects and often flies under the
> radar, I am in favor of adding a mention to paragraph 4 that would say
> something like: excessive lobbying or engaging the Alpine community on
> non-technical matters *is* a disruption of the collaborative space and a
> violation of the CoC. (In other words: make it clear that
> politics, drama or any other kind of noise => out.)
>> Let's make our CoC as we like our software. Simple, reliable, and small.
> Yes. And to me, reliability includes checks from people with more
> experience than we have in these matters.
> Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
> Help: alpine-devel+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
Received on Sat May 13 2017 - 19:11:28 UTC