[arch-dev-public] RFC Final Comment Period: Adoption of a distribution-wide Code of Conduct

Sven-Hendrik Haase svenstaro at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 15:41:25 UTC 2021

On 06.10.21 12:47, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 27/9/21 4:33 am, David Runge via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> An RFC has now entered Final Comment Period. In 14 days, discussion will
>> end and the proposal will either be accepted, rejected or withdrawn:
>> https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/6
>> Please visit the above link for discussion.
> Note that visiting the above link to make a comment would require
> agreeing to the Terms of Service, which includes the document under
> discussion. However, the RFC process does allow discussion external to
> the merge request, so people should feel free to respond elsewhere.
> I do not disagree with Arch having *a* code of conduct. I disagree with
> Arch formally adopting *this* code of conduct. As I stated in [1], I
> find the current document to be extremely long. This is mostly due to
> explaining points in a level of detail that I consider condescending to
> the community. For example, I'm not sure a word other than condescending
> can be used to describe explaining in great detail what a troll is to a
> technical Linux distribution community.
> I do not think Arch should formally adopt *this* code of conduct.
> [1]
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2021-July/030474.html
> Regards,
> Allan

I think it's important to move forward here and I really like that David 
has been keeping the ball rolling for so long. We've also blocked for a 
really long time on getting a proper set of documents for GDPR 
compliance in the form of ToS and the Privacy Policy.

I don't think it's condescending. If anything, the level of detail 
things are explained in make it easier to refer to this document alone 
when pointing our digressions as opposed to having to refer to external 
resources. The length doesn't appear to be unreasonable to me but I see 
how it could be improved.

However, I think it's somewhat necessary to get _something_ in place 
here as a CoC. Having something (even perhaps something that you think 
has some need of shortening) is certainly better than no CoC at all! As 
a compromise, I suggest perhaps pulling more detailed content (such as 
the stuff that you deem to be condescending) into foot notes so that the 
main body of the document will become a bit more focused and less 
explanatory. Would that work for you?

You appear to generally be agreeing to the overall do's and don'ts (as 
your MR's [0] overall points are about the same). I therefore would like 
to implore you to roll with this version for now and then improve upon 
it as a direct follow up.

We have to be careful not to burn out David here with too much 
controversy as when that happens, no one will be here to pick up this 
topic and there won't be any CoC at all.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20211006/c0744e86/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list