[diversity] Experiences from the Django community
- Previous message (by thread): [diversity] Experiences from the Django community
- Next message (by thread): [diversity] Experiences from the Django community
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Mon Jul 17 14:54:54 CEST 2017
On 17/07/2017 10:28, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > On 17/07/2017 09:19, Brian Nisbet wrote: >> Malcolm, >> >> The CoC was suggested, then formally proposed, discussed by a small >> group within the community, watered down, agreed to by the WG Chairs and >> then announced. > > What you appear to be describing is a process in which some people came > up with it (you?), and WG chairs had input into the drafting but nobody > else. That's not a community process. You know, I'd started to write a mail to document the history of the Code of Conduct, then I stopped. For a start I'm not sure what kind of community process would satisfy you, but more to the point I don't understand your objection. We had (have?) a problem, some wording and light process was brought in to address that. It was necessary. The community, by virtue of accepting this, agreed with it. And I think over time that agreement and acceptance has grown. > Or was the wording proposed on ripe-list or in plenary for discussion > before it went to the WG Chairs? If so, I missed it - which is quite > possible, I must admit. > >> This TF hasn't been tasked with looking at the CoC but it is core to >> what we're doing. > > OK then. And I'm glad we're agreed on this. Obviously you can, as a member of the community, take up these issues with the RIPE Chair etc, but I will admit I'm having a hard time understanding your issue here. But I'm happy to take it to private email. Brian
- Previous message (by thread): [diversity] Experiences from the Django community
- Next message (by thread): [diversity] Experiences from the Django community
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]