On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Jan Claeys <lists@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2018-06-06 at 07:27 +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> The real fear here is the code of conduct being co-opted as a weapon
> of world-wide culture war and that's what is driving a lot of the
> resistance here. This is particularly an American problem here and
> it causes a lot of resistance among people who were, until the
> second world war, subject to some pretty serious problems by colonial
> powers.
I don't see how this could happen any more than it already can, because
as far as I can tell the goal is not to discuss complaints in public;
the committee would handle cases in private. And if committee members
would try to abuse their power, I'm pretty sure they would be removed.
Right. I think the fears are overblown but you do have to remember that we started this whole public side of the process when there was a real effort by some in around open source to push contributor codes of conducts that were expressly political (the Contributor Covenant for example) and in the wake of Opalgate.
I do not doubt that at some point we will face the same. I don't doubt that such efforts will be unsuccessful. But I do think they will put the project through some public controversy and grief and so we are best off to try to minimize the attack surface.
> Putting a bunch of American lawyers, psychologists, sociologists,
> marketers etc on the board in the name of diversity would do way more
> harm than good.
I didn't say they have to be American, and I didn't say there has to be
a bunch of them. I just said it would be good if there were also
people who aren't (just only) developers, DBAs or other very technical
people.
Ok I get what your concern is now. I am not sure the formal qualifications matter but I would agree that the committee needs to be staffed with people we trust to be good "people people" rather than good "tech people."
--
Jan Claeys
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
