On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 06:52:10AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > > > What does > > > "poor behaviour" > > > mean? > > That which is socially disruptive. > You exchange one undefined term against another, but that doesn't > change the underlying problem, which is, *what* is socially > disruptive? > An example: I was living long years in Siena, Italy, and some of > my friends used *very* commonly very strong words for daily > greetings, like "che c**** fai" "porco ***" etc (those speaking > Italian will understand). In many regions of Italy, and in other > circumstance, like my current living environment in Japan, this > would be *extremly* socially disruptive, but back there it was > normality. > The whole point is that all these pseudo definitions of normality > are just fake, fake, fake. We are cheating ourselves if we believe > that even the most simple facts are globally socially acceptable. > Go to Chechnya and or some remote provinces of Georgia, and you > will be tought something else. > Changing tags, names, words does not change the fundamental problem. You are using cultural relativism to justify behavior that is against the norms of *this* culture (the Debian one). I'm sure you will find, when this is put to a vote, that you are distinctly in the minority in holding this position. > > argumentum ad hominem, if that's clearer? I.e., this is to say "play the > > ball, not the man". > See above, same same. What is consider "personal attack" in one > surrounding is just a friendly greeting between close buddies in > the other? > Example: In America hip hip society if I meet my buddy and greet > him with "Hi boy, you got a belly that big that you cannot see your b***s", > in most of the cases I would be considered extremely rude, while in > other surroundings this is a honorific term. The people on this mailing list are your peers in a very prominent Free Software project, not your "buddy". Even if someone on this list *is* your buddy, it's not appropriate to address them that way /on this list/. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, and I think your protestations here are nothing but an excuse for ignoring the obvious social norms. > > I also happen to believe that this is currently not the status quo in > > Debian; and if it were, then that would be an even better reason why we > > need a code of conduct. We don't want bad behaviour; not from random > > mailinglist participants, not from Debian Developers, and certainly not > > from people in a position of power. > You missed the point. It was that the code of conduct can be used > against critical voices. Too easily. That's an important problem to guard against when formulating a CoC; but there is a difference between criticism and personal attacks / abuse, and there is no fundamental reason we can't draw a line in the sand against abuse without having a chilling effect on criticism. If you have concrete suggestions for improving the CoC language to *not* have the side effect of suppressing criticism, I for one would be interested in hearing them. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature