On Apr 16 2021, at 3:30 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
Marc suggested a change to the first paragraph:
From: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is not used to pay programmers or other contributors to make Inkscape. Instead contributors themselves must be self-funded or purely volunteers. Users who wish to help fund Inkscape contributors may contact them directly."
To: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is not used to respond to user needs, only for the general public interest. Instead contributors themselves can help users privately to achieve modifications and improvements through direct funding or even bartering."
I love that we're encouraging bartering. 😉 I'm a little uncomfortable saying that the main fund doesn't respond to user needs, because while they don't realize it, things like paying for the trademark does provide value to users. Just no one asks for that. What would you think about: "Because of the way Inkscape is developed, the main charity fund is used for infrastructure and general project needs instead of feature requests or specific user concerns. Contributors themselves can help users privately to achieve modifications and improvements that are desired through direct funding or even bartering." I feel like that says what it does do more than what it doesn't. Thoughts? (I don't love the word "desired" but I can't find a better one)
Patrick also reviewed it from the vectors channel on rocket chat, he had a lot more issues, but suggested making sure people could be removed for violations to the code of conduct. I've added the section to the bottom: """ # Can people be removed from being listed? The list is meant as a sort of business index of people providing services. But if contributors violate Inkscape community code of conduct they may be removed from this listing in the same way that they would be removed from other parts of the website. """ He suggested more, an issue with making sure people are actually active in the community. But I couldn't make anything line up with what you were saying ted about keeping things open and not being seen to be arbiters or guarantors. Any ideas that might suffice?
Good points. For inactive contributors, I think we've got a plan for that generally as we have new plans on how to identify contributors. So we don't need another mechanism to do that. We haven't discussed anything with a CoC violation, but I think that someone should be removed from active contributor status if they violate it. I'm feeling like we should save this debate for when we flesh out exact wording there, but I'm all for a mechanism to remove "active contributor" status for those who violate the CoC (lots of details to work out). But I'm feeling like where we're going with "active contributor" deals with Patrick's concerns on the list as to be on the list you'd have to be an active contributor. Ted