On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:49:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:37:39PM -0700, Anthony Towns wrote:
In this thread, you've described Linus's behaviour/actions/comments as
"really nasty" (above), "poisonous", "destructive", "disappointing",
"unhealthy", "aggressive[ly] contempt[uous]", "aggressively nasty",
"hostile", "destructive to the community", "unacceptable treatment of
human beings", and "globally unacceptable anywhere".
At some point, doesn't that fall afoul of Debian's code of conduct?
I'm not sure if you're being facetious; condemning someone's
behavior/actions/comments is categorically *not* a personal attack (because
it is a criticism of the behavior and not of the person). If you are
raising this as a serious question, then I have grave concerns about the
viability of our Code of Conduct.
Well, this gets right to the heart of the argument about whether
"dishonest" is an insult or an adjective, no? It would be patently
unfair for the project to mandate that interactions must never give
offense, unless the target's social views render him anathema.
This may no longer be a productive and informative discussion, but
legislating social best practice doesn't improve signal-to-noise either. If
the CoC has replaced Policy as the stick to (not) hit people with, then
we're in big trouble as a project.
We'll have to see what happens. As I wrote in a previous message, if the
CoC is interpreted as narrowly scoped and primarily addressing hostile
(as opposed to heated) interactions, trolling, and flamewars (as it has
been) then all is well. If the CoC becomes a sociological purity test, yeah,
there's trouble ahead. That doesn't seem to be the prevailing view,
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.