[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

[Martin Smith]

>Should it be the committee from professional developers?

Volunteers

>How many hours are they ready to spend for complaints comparing to other tasks?

I don't think there will be many complaints. That's the main point of having a CoC. It reminds posters to be civil. When there is a complaint, it is sent to each member of the committee. They read it and agree whether it requires a response. If so, post a reminder of the CoC in the location where the alleged offense occurred.

________________________________________
From: Alexey Andreyev <yetanotherandreyev at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:48:19 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: jhihn at gmx.com; Volker Hilsheimer; Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

 > Don't define it because you already know what it is. Just explain the complaint process and create the committee to deal with each complaint on a case by case basis.
It could make sense, but then we should made a plan how the committee could work and how many resources could it take.
Should it be the committee from professional developers? How many hours are they ready to spend for complaints comparing to other tasks?

чт, 25 окт. 2018 г. в 20:19, Martin Smith <Martin.Smith at qt.io<mailto:Martin.Smith at qt.io>>:
>There are two ways to resolve this: either
>1) Do not consider it, or
>2) Define in excruciating detail, as to remove the "slippery" from the slope.

There is a 3rd way:
3) Don't define it because you already know what it is. Just explain the comp[laint process and create the committee to deal with each complaint on a case by case basis.

________________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces+martin.smith=qt.io at qt-project.org<mailto:qt.io at qt-project.org>> on behalf of Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com<mailto:jhihn at gmx.com>>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:12:00 PM
To: Volker Hilsheimer
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct



> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 11:38 AM
> From: "Volker Hilsheimer" <volker.hilsheimer at qt.io<mailto:volker.hilsheimer at qt.io>>
> To: "Jason H" <jhihn at gmx.com<mailto:jhihn at gmx.com>>, "Qt development mailing list" <development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>>
> Cc: "Mitch Curtis" <mitch.curtis at qt.io<mailto:mitch.curtis at qt.io>>
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> > On 25 Oct 2018, at 16:43, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com<mailto:jhihn at gmx.com>> wrote:
> > Next there is a notion of the CoC being applied to profanity. I am also against this. This would violate my right to free speech, and it would be so vague to be unenforceable.
>
>
> Oh dear.
>
> With your "right to free speech" you probably refer to the first amendment of the United States Constitution.
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> The Qt Community is not the US Congress (sadly, perhaps) or some instituation legimized by the US Congress. We can therefore not “violate your right to free speech”. Also, the right to free speech does not imply an obligation for any- or everyone to listen to your speech, no matter the opinions or density of profanities.
>
> A community of people can not only decide not to listen, it can also easily restrict your freedom of speech.

Well, you have people of various legal jurisdictions that have differing ideas on what they are allowed to say. Even the US constitution does not grant the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. However being of such a jurisdiction I am accustomed to having responsible speech being permitted. You are correct that no one has to listen, but I have the right to express it. The concern that I have is if certain measures are enacted, I will lose my ability to "speak" because someone was offended. It's a slippery slope I'd rather not contend with. There are two ways to resolve this: either
1) Do not consider it, or
2) Define in excruciating detail, as to remove the "slippery" from the slope.

_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development