Hello
I think the CoC can be considerably improved. I think it's too wordy in a few places. Here is my proposed revised text.
Inkscape online communities are intended to be a friendly, inclusive spaces for users to collaborate on the further development of Inkscape, share and discuss their creations, inspire each other and interact in constructive ways. To that end, we have established a set of guidelines that we believe will help foster such an environment. Anyone willing to follow these guidelines is welcome.
In your interactions with others, please do your best to:
- Be respectful. There's always a human very much like you at the other end. Always treat them respectfully and be kind to them, even if you disagree with them.
- Be responsible. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time; own up to them and be willing to work on fixing them. If someone has been harmed or offended, listen carefully and work to right the wrong.
- Don't take criticism personally. Remember that criticizing an idea (e.g. a technical proposal or an user interface blueprint) is different from criticizing the person that proposed it. Do not become overly attached to your contributions and do not demand preferential treatment for them because of your standing in the community. Ideas should stand on the merit of their supporting arguments, not on the merit of their originators.
- Use neutral language. Avoid words that others are likely to find offensive or excluding.
- Forgive. If someone wronged you and apologized, do not keep demanding special punishment. Don't hold a grudge or seek to settle scores. Be willing to let things slide if it benefits the community.
- Give credit where it is due. Never try to pass off others' work as your own.
- Disclose and address conflicts of interest. You should be aware when you are conflicted due to employment or other projects you are involved in, and abstain or delegate decisions that may be seen to be self-interested. When in doubt, ask for a second opinion.
- Step down considerately. When you leave a responsible position in the Inkscape project, do so in a way that minimizes disruption to the community. Tell people you are leaving and take the proper steps to ensure that others can pick up where you left off.
The following actions and behaviours are deemed unacceptable:
- Harassment of other users, including but not limited to threats of any kind, insults, discriminatory language and jokes, unwelcome sexual attention, posting personally identifying information ("doxing").
- Deliberate disruption: trolling, spamming, flaming, baiting, attention seeking, distribution of malware, any kind of attacks against Inkscape computing infrastructure or that of its parent organizations.
- Distribution of illegal or pornographic material in Inkscape communities.
- Advocating or encouraging any of the above.
If you believe a member of an Inkscape community is in breach of the above code, report it to the appropriate moderators (contact info here), even if you are not among the directly affected parties. Violations of the code can be met with disciplinary action, ranging from a private warning to complete, permanent expulsion. If you feel you have been unfairly accused or penalised, you may contact Inkscape's board (link to governance section here). Decisions of the board are final.
Summary of changes: I removed some text that I felt was repetitive and split the code into 2 sections with desirable and undesirable behaviors. I also added 2 points: "Forgive" and "Give credit where it is due", which I think are pretty important, and a paragraph at the end about disciplinary action.
Best regards, Krzysztof
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
I would really like to see it finalized and finished. There have been a few non-family-friendly images uploaded to the gallery, and it would be nice to be able to quote from the CoC when notifying them why their image was removed.
Or....maybe the CoC is not supposed to cover the images?? Except for "> - Distribution of illegal or pornographic material in Inkscape communities. " I don't see any language about the gallery -- only about how to communicate, and how to behave in a community.
If it's supposed to cover the images, maybe the words "family-friendly" should appear somewhere, as well as some sort of idea what it means. I understand that "family-friendly" has slightly different meanings between the east and the western parts of the world, especially regarding images or art.
"Family-friendly" is different from "distributing pornographic material".
I don't know how long it will be, before moderation capabilities (for the gallery and comments) will be ready for release. But the sooner the CoC can be finalized, the sooner the site will be ready for them.
So we can compare your version to whatever version you worked on -- which version did you edit? It looks like there are 2 or 3 (or more?) versions on this page: https://inkscape.org/en/community/coc/. It looks like you worked on the 1st?
Thanks for bringing up this subject. It really needs to be finished, imo :-)
brynn
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Krzysztof Kosinski" <tweenk.pl@...400...> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 3:58 AM To: "inkscape-devel" inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Inkscape-devel] Code of Conduct review
Hello
I think the CoC can be considerably improved. I think it's too wordy in a few places. Here is my proposed revised text.
Inkscape online communities are intended to be a friendly, inclusive spaces for users to collaborate on the further development of Inkscape, share and discuss their creations, inspire each other and interact in constructive ways. To that end, we have established a set of guidelines that we believe will help foster such an environment. Anyone willing to follow these guidelines is welcome.
In your interactions with others, please do your best to:
- Be respectful. There's always a human very much like you at the
other end. Always treat them respectfully and be kind to them, even if you disagree with them.
- Be responsible. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time; own up to
them and be willing to work on fixing them. If someone has been harmed or offended, listen carefully and work to right the wrong.
- Don't take criticism personally. Remember that criticizing an idea
(e.g. a technical proposal or an user interface blueprint) is different from criticizing the person that proposed it. Do not become overly attached to your contributions and do not demand preferential treatment for them because of your standing in the community. Ideas should stand on the merit of their supporting arguments, not on the merit of their originators.
- Use neutral language. Avoid words that others are likely to find
offensive or excluding.
- Forgive. If someone wronged you and apologized, do not keep
demanding special punishment. Don't hold a grudge or seek to settle scores. Be willing to let things slide if it benefits the community.
- Give credit where it is due. Never try to pass off others' work as your
own.
- Disclose and address conflicts of interest. You should be aware when
you are conflicted due to employment or other projects you are involved in, and abstain or delegate decisions that may be seen to be self-interested. When in doubt, ask for a second opinion.
- Step down considerately. When you leave a responsible position in
the Inkscape project, do so in a way that minimizes disruption to the community. Tell people you are leaving and take the proper steps to ensure that others can pick up where you left off.
The following actions and behaviours are deemed unacceptable:
- Harassment of other users, including but not limited to threats of
any kind, insults, discriminatory language and jokes, unwelcome sexual attention, posting personally identifying information ("doxing").
- Deliberate disruption: trolling, spamming, flaming, baiting,
attention seeking, distribution of malware, any kind of attacks against Inkscape computing infrastructure or that of its parent organizations.
- Distribution of illegal or pornographic material in Inkscape
communities.
- Advocating or encouraging any of the above.
If you believe a member of an Inkscape community is in breach of the above code, report it to the appropriate moderators (contact info here), even if you are not among the directly affected parties. Violations of the code can be met with disciplinary action, ranging from a private warning to complete, permanent expulsion. If you feel you have been unfairly accused or penalised, you may contact Inkscape's board (link to governance section here). Decisions of the board are final.
Summary of changes: I removed some text that I felt was repetitive and split the code into 2 sections with desirable and undesirable behaviors. I also added 2 points: "Forgive" and "Give credit where it is due", which I think are pretty important, and a paragraph at the end about disciplinary action.
Best regards, Krzysztof
Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
El lun, 05-10-2015 a las 05:55 -0600, Brynn escribió:
If it's supposed to cover the images, maybe the words "family -friendly" should appear somewhere, as well as some sort of idea what it means. I understand that "family-friendly" has slightly different meanings between the east and the western parts of the world, especially regarding images or art.
I think "family-friendly" is a too loose concept, making it difficult to determine what falls inside and outside of the category. For instance, graphic violence is not "family-friendly" at all if you ask me. However, the depition of graphic violence in all kinds of media seems to be fine for everyone, unless it's too gory. Hypersexualization of female models isn't too family-friendly either, but it's pervasive in the fantasy and gaming imagery. Again, most of the people seem to be ok with that too.
I think that introducing the term "family-friendly" opens doors to different interpretations, and it might create controversies that aren't easy to solve, as different people will have different views on what is and what is not family-friendly.
"Pornographic" is a more straight-forward concept, and pornographic images are clearly not "family-friendly". Everyone will agree with that.
I think that Krzysztof's revision of the CoC is just fine. It's not redundant, it's clear and very easy to read and understand.
Gez
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:46:45PM -0300, Gez wrote:
El lun, 05-10-2015 a las 05:55 -0600, Brynn escribió:
If it's supposed to cover the images, maybe the words "family -friendly" should appear somewhere, as well as some sort of idea what it means. I understand that "family-friendly" has slightly different meanings between the east and the western parts of the world, especially regarding images or art.
I think "family-friendly" is a too loose concept, making it difficult to determine what falls inside and outside of the category. For instance, graphic violence is not "family-friendly" at all if you ask me. However, the depition of graphic violence in all kinds of media seems to be fine for everyone, unless it's too gory. Hypersexualization of female models isn't too family-friendly either, but it's pervasive in the fantasy and gaming imagery. Again, most of the people seem to be ok with that too.
I think that introducing the term "family-friendly" opens doors to different interpretations, and it might create controversies that aren't easy to solve, as different people will have different views on what is and what is not family-friendly.
Good point about the ambiguity of language. On the other hand, I think this topic is something that has to be kept to a generalized level, else it'll get to crazy levels of detail.
Back in our early pre-Inkscape days, one thing users liked to draw in Sodipodi were flags of their home country or state. I bundled these together and encouraged more submissions. Inevitably someone sent a NAZI flag... well this is considered offensive most places in the world, but in particular it's an illegal image in Germany. Soon to find out the Taiwanese flag is offensive/illegal in China. The Confederate battle flag is not illegal but certainly offensive to some. Later we started collecting icons and symbols, to learn that display of human body parts is considered offensive in Islam. People sent in trademarked logos, copyrighted Disney characters, and so on and so forth.
It's hard to know where to draw lines with this sort of stuff, what to allow, what to reject. You won't be able to predict ahead of time every possible category of offense that people will come up with.
I think the best that can realistically be stated in the CoC is that ultimately moderators will be using their common sense judgment on what is allowable on our websites, and reserve the right to remove anything that they feel do not fit the Inkscape project's values.
"Pornographic" is a more straight-forward concept, and pornographic images are clearly not "family-friendly". Everyone will agree with that.
I think that Krzysztof's revision of the CoC is just fine. It's not redundant, it's clear and very easy to read and understand.
Agreed. At the last board meeting we decided to circulate it through several of us for final copy edits. I'm hoping we can help it get to a final state by the next meeting at the beginning of next month.
Bryce
2015-10-05 13:55 GMT+02:00 Brynn <brynn@...3133...>:
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
If the CoC is too long, it discourages people from actually reading it.
I would really like to see it finalized and finished. There have been a few non-family-friendly images uploaded to the gallery, and it would be nice to be able to quote from the CoC when notifying them why their image was removed.
Or....maybe the CoC is not supposed to cover the images?? Except for "> - Distribution of illegal or pornographic material in Inkscape communities. " I don't see any language about the gallery -- only about how to communicate, and how to behave in a community.
If it's supposed to cover the images, maybe the words "family-friendly" should appear somewhere, as well as some sort of idea what it means. I understand that "family-friendly" has slightly different meanings between the east and the western parts of the world, especially regarding images or art.
If we want to ban "non-family-friendly" images completely, then I can add a section on guidelines for user-submitted content. I thought that this type of art would be allowed but hidden behind a content warning, and not labeling explicit images as such would be penalized.
So we can compare your version to whatever version you worked on -- which version did you edit? It looks like there are 2 or 3 (or more?) versions on this page: https://inkscape.org/en/community/coc/. It looks like you worked on the 1st?
The versions at the bottom of the page are codes from other projects, such as Rust and Django, and the version on top is an amalgamation that was proposed as our CoC. What I wrote is a rather large modification of what was at the top.
The code here is fairly complete and I like the section structure, but is also rather vague for a technical community and contains a lot of stuff that apply only to events where participants are present in person that I think are not relevant to our project. http://citizencodeofconduct.org/
Best regards, Krzysztof
I'm joining Brynn in thanking you that you started this discussion, Krzysztof :)
Am 05.10.2015 um 18:08 schrieb Krzysztof Kosiński:
2015-10-05 13:55 GMT+02:00 Brynn <brynn@...3133...>:
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
- What I like about the shorter version is that it puts the 'unwanted behaviours' together in a shorter list. I also like the new 'Forgive' section a lot.
What I like less is that the shorter version sounds less friendly to me, where it doesn't explain, and where it speaks of excluding people forever, or not including people right away if they don't show obvious willingness to follow the CoC. I believe that people can learn.
That's why I preferred the soft-spoken style of the longer version. Maybe we can make the short version sound a little more friendly? I would also like to keep the burn-out hint (which was important to Bryce, who said it was a real-life problem), the section about being inviting, and asking for help, too - people who don't dare to ask for help can create a real mess ;).
If the CoC is too long, it discourages people from actually reading it.
- Unfortunately, this is probably true ;)
If we want to ban "non-family-friendly" images completely, then I can add a section on guidelines for user-submitted content. I thought that this type of art would be allowed but hidden behind a content warning, and not labeling explicit images as such would be penalized.
- We might also some day have a section about Terms and Conditions, which people must agree to when they register for a website account.
Maybe mentioning the family-friendliness could better fit in there? It's more a website-specific thing, not so much a community-ground-rules thing.
The versions at the bottom of the page are codes from other projects, such as Rust and Django, and the version on top is an amalgamation that was proposed as our CoC. What I wrote is a rather large modification of what was at the top.
- Exactly. I kept the others in for reference of what is considered to be a 'complete CoC'.
The code here is fairly complete and I like the section structure, but is also rather vague for a technical community
and contains a lot of stuff that apply only to events where participants are present in person that I think are not relevant to our project.
- That's something I cannot find - which parts are those?
Thanks again for taking this topic to discussion,
Maren
- We might also some day have a section about Terms and Conditions,
which people must agree to when they register for a website account.
Maybe mentioning the family-friendliness could better fit in there? It's more a website-specific thing, not so much a community-ground-rules thing.
Yes, I think that's an excellent idea, which I think should happen sooner than "someday". And I certainly would not want a long discussion about "family-friendly" to delay finalizing the CoC.
brynn
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Maren Hachmann" <maren@...3165...> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:51 AM To: "Krzysztof Kosiński" <tweenk.pl@...400...>; "Inkscape Devel List" inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Code of Conduct review
I'm joining Brynn in thanking you that you started this discussion, Krzysztof :)
Am 05.10.2015 um 18:08 schrieb Krzysztof Kosiński:
2015-10-05 13:55 GMT+02:00 Brynn <brynn@...3133...>:
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
- What I like about the shorter version is that it puts the 'unwanted
behaviours' together in a shorter list. I also like the new 'Forgive' section a lot.
What I like less is that the shorter version sounds less friendly to me, where it doesn't explain, and where it speaks of excluding people forever, or not including people right away if they don't show obvious willingness to follow the CoC. I believe that people can learn.
That's why I preferred the soft-spoken style of the longer version. Maybe we can make the short version sound a little more friendly? I would also like to keep the burn-out hint (which was important to Bryce, who said it was a real-life problem), the section about being inviting, and asking for help, too - people who don't dare to ask for help can create a real mess ;).
If the CoC is too long, it discourages people from actually reading it.
- Unfortunately, this is probably true ;)
If we want to ban "non-family-friendly" images completely, then I can add a section on guidelines for user-submitted content. I thought that this type of art would be allowed but hidden behind a content warning, and not labeling explicit images as such would be penalized.
- We might also some day have a section about Terms and Conditions,
which people must agree to when they register for a website account.
Maybe mentioning the family-friendliness could better fit in there? It's more a website-specific thing, not so much a community-ground-rules thing.
The versions at the bottom of the page are codes from other projects, such as Rust and Django, and the version on top is an amalgamation that was proposed as our CoC. What I wrote is a rather large modification of what was at the top.
- Exactly. I kept the others in for reference of what is considered to
be a 'complete CoC'.
The code here is fairly complete and I like the section structure, but is also rather vague for a technical community
and contains a lot of stuff that apply only to events where participants are present in person that I think are not relevant to our project.
- That's something I cannot find - which parts are those?
Thanks again for taking this topic to discussion,
Maren
Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
2015-10-05 18:51 GMT+02:00 Maren Hachmann <maren@...3165...>:
I'm joining Brynn in thanking you that you started this discussion, Krzysztof :)
Am 05.10.2015 um 18:08 schrieb Krzysztof Kosiński:
2015-10-05 13:55 GMT+02:00 Brynn <brynn@...3133...>:
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
- What I like about the shorter version is that it puts the 'unwanted
behaviours' together in a shorter list. I also like the new 'Forgive' section a lot.
What I like less is that the shorter version sounds less friendly to me, where it doesn't explain, and where it speaks of excluding people forever, or not including people right away if they don't show obvious willingness to follow the CoC. I believe that people can learn.
I think it's essential to have a section that says what should be done if someone does not behave. If everyone was nice, then CoCs wouldn't be necessary at all. I added a header to that it's conceptually separate.
That's why I preferred the soft-spoken style of the longer version. Maybe we can make the short version sound a little more friendly? I would also like to keep the burn-out hint (which was important to Bryce, who said it was a real-life problem), the section about being inviting, and asking for help, too - people who don't dare to ask for help can create a real mess ;).
Updated draft is on the website. I tried to make it a little more friendly while keeping the total length manageable. https://inkscape.org/en/community/coc/
- We might also some day have a section about Terms and Conditions,
which people must agree to when they register for a website account.
Maybe mentioning the family-friendliness could better fit in there? It's more a website-specific thing, not so much a community-ground-rules thing.
For now I've added a short section on user-submitted content. We can split this into a separate page later. "Family friendliness" is a rather vague concept, so I just included a few explicit bans. Further input on rules for user content is welcome.
The code here is fairly complete and I like the section structure, but is also rather vague for a technical community and contains a lot of stuff that apply only to events where participants are present in person that I think are not relevant to our project.
- That's something I cannot find - which parts are those?
E.g. section 5 contains "Inappropriate physical contact" and "Sustained disruption of community events, including talks and presentations" as examples of unacceptable behaviours - this is not relevant to us unless we want to organize an Inkscape conference.
Best regards, Krzysztof
A few more changes:
- I removed the "be willing to let things slide if it benefits the community", since this could be taken the wrong way. - Added an explicit prohibition on arguments over what is allowed. According to information on the web, these kinds of arguments are more disruptive and harmful than the unwanted behaviour itself. - I think we need to flesh out the information about who should be contacted in case of violations, and what is the process (it doesn't need to be as detailed as here: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/reporting/ , but there should at least be a few sentences.)
Best regards, Krzysztof
2015-10-05 23:15 GMT+02:00 Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...400...>:
2015-10-05 18:51 GMT+02:00 Maren Hachmann <maren@...3165...>:
I'm joining Brynn in thanking you that you started this discussion, Krzysztof :)
Am 05.10.2015 um 18:08 schrieb Krzysztof Kosiński:
2015-10-05 13:55 GMT+02:00 Brynn <brynn@...3133...>:
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
- What I like about the shorter version is that it puts the 'unwanted
behaviours' together in a shorter list. I also like the new 'Forgive' section a lot.
What I like less is that the shorter version sounds less friendly to me, where it doesn't explain, and where it speaks of excluding people forever, or not including people right away if they don't show obvious willingness to follow the CoC. I believe that people can learn.
I think it's essential to have a section that says what should be done if someone does not behave. If everyone was nice, then CoCs wouldn't be necessary at all. I added a header to that it's conceptually separate.
That's why I preferred the soft-spoken style of the longer version. Maybe we can make the short version sound a little more friendly? I would also like to keep the burn-out hint (which was important to Bryce, who said it was a real-life problem), the section about being inviting, and asking for help, too - people who don't dare to ask for help can create a real mess ;).
Updated draft is on the website. I tried to make it a little more friendly while keeping the total length manageable. https://inkscape.org/en/community/coc/
- We might also some day have a section about Terms and Conditions,
which people must agree to when they register for a website account.
Maybe mentioning the family-friendliness could better fit in there? It's more a website-specific thing, not so much a community-ground-rules thing.
For now I've added a short section on user-submitted content. We can split this into a separate page later. "Family friendliness" is a rather vague concept, so I just included a few explicit bans. Further input on rules for user content is welcome.
The code here is fairly complete and I like the section structure, but is also rather vague for a technical community and contains a lot of stuff that apply only to events where participants are present in person that I think are not relevant to our project.
- That's something I cannot find - which parts are those?
E.g. section 5 contains "Inappropriate physical contact" and "Sustained disruption of community events, including talks and presentations" as examples of unacceptable behaviours - this is not relevant to us unless we want to organize an Inkscape conference.
Best regards, Krzysztof
Is the version on the website now your version with revisions? I like that very much!
Also agree about:
"> - I think we need to flesh out the information about who should be
contacted in case of violations,....."
But I don't have the qualifications to write it.
Thanks again for working on this :-)
brynn
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Krzysztof Kosiński" <tweenk.pl@...400...> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:16 AM To: "Maren Hachmann" <maren@...3165...> Cc: "Inkscape Devel List" inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Code of Conduct review
A few more changes:
- I removed the "be willing to let things slide if it benefits the
community", since this could be taken the wrong way.
- Added an explicit prohibition on arguments over what is allowed.
According to information on the web, these kinds of arguments are more disruptive and harmful than the unwanted behaviour itself.
- I think we need to flesh out the information about who should be
contacted in case of violations, and what is the process (it doesn't need to be as detailed as here: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/reporting/ , but there should at least be a few sentences.)
Best regards, Krzysztof
2015-10-05 23:15 GMT+02:00 Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...400...>:
2015-10-05 18:51 GMT+02:00 Maren Hachmann <maren@...3165...>:
I'm joining Brynn in thanking you that you started this discussion, Krzysztof :)
Am 05.10.2015 um 18:08 schrieb Krzysztof Kosiński:
2015-10-05 13:55 GMT+02:00 Brynn <brynn@...3133...>:
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
- What I like about the shorter version is that it puts the 'unwanted
behaviours' together in a shorter list. I also like the new 'Forgive' section a lot.
What I like less is that the shorter version sounds less friendly to me, where it doesn't explain, and where it speaks of excluding people forever, or not including people right away if they don't show obvious willingness to follow the CoC. I believe that people can learn.
I think it's essential to have a section that says what should be done if someone does not behave. If everyone was nice, then CoCs wouldn't be necessary at all. I added a header to that it's conceptually separate.
That's why I preferred the soft-spoken style of the longer version. Maybe we can make the short version sound a little more friendly? I would also like to keep the burn-out hint (which was important to Bryce, who said it was a real-life problem), the section about being inviting, and asking for help, too - people who don't dare to ask for help can create a real mess ;).
Updated draft is on the website. I tried to make it a little more friendly while keeping the total length manageable. https://inkscape.org/en/community/coc/
- We might also some day have a section about Terms and Conditions,
which people must agree to when they register for a website account.
Maybe mentioning the family-friendliness could better fit in there? It's more a website-specific thing, not so much a community-ground-rules thing.
For now I've added a short section on user-submitted content. We can split this into a separate page later. "Family friendliness" is a rather vague concept, so I just included a few explicit bans. Further input on rules for user content is welcome.
The code here is fairly complete and I like the section structure, but is also rather vague for a technical community and contains a lot of stuff that apply only to events where participants are present in person that I think are not relevant to our project.
- That's something I cannot find - which parts are those?
E.g. section 5 contains "Inappropriate physical contact" and "Sustained disruption of community events, including talks and presentations" as examples of unacceptable behaviours - this is not relevant to us unless we want to organize an Inkscape conference.
Best regards, Krzysztof
Full-scale, agent-less Infrastructure Monitoring from a single dashboard Integrate with 40+ ManageEngine ITSM Solutions for complete visibility Physical-Virtual-Cloud Infrastructure monitoring from one console Real user monitoring with APM Insights and performance trend reports Learn More http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=247754911&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:02:07AM -0600, Brynn wrote:
Is the version on the website now your version with revisions? I like that very much!
Also agree about:
"> - I think we need to flesh out the information about who should be
contacted in case of violations,....."
But I don't have the qualifications to write it.
Thanks again for working on this :-)
brynn
Thanks everyone for putting time in on this CoC, and particular Krzysztof for kicking off this last round of discussions.
Would anyone else mind giving it one last copyedit cycle? Then at the next board meeting we can go ahead and make it official and get it into use.
Bryce
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:08:39PM +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
2015-10-05 13:55 GMT+02:00 Brynn <brynn@...3133...>:
I haven't seen any version of the CoC that I would object to. Although having said that, I think more details are better than less, in this type of document.
If the CoC is too long, it discourages people from actually reading it.
I would really like to see it finalized and finished. There have been a few non-family-friendly images uploaded to the gallery, and it would be nice to be able to quote from the CoC when notifying them why their image was removed.
Or....maybe the CoC is not supposed to cover the images?? Except for "> - Distribution of illegal or pornographic material in Inkscape communities. " I don't see any language about the gallery -- only about how to communicate, and how to behave in a community.
If it's supposed to cover the images, maybe the words "family-friendly" should appear somewhere, as well as some sort of idea what it means. I understand that "family-friendly" has slightly different meanings between the east and the western parts of the world, especially regarding images or art.
If we want to ban "non-family-friendly" images completely, then I can add a section on guidelines for user-submitted content. I thought that this type of art would be allowed but hidden behind a content warning, and not labeling explicit images as such would be penalized.
Personally, I feel there's plenty enough other sites out there where controversial materials can be posted, that we don't really need to make special provisions. If we're not comfortable about having it displayed proudly on our site, we should politely decline it, and let it find a more appropriate home.
I know this also forces the moderators to have to make some tough choices. This is not necessarily a bad thing - like any well curated collection of art, there are going to be fundamentally subjective decisions as to what is "good" art and what is "bad". Perhaps there is some provocative piece which clearly crosses the line of taste, yet is executed with such skill that we must clearly include it. Michaelangeo's David is clearly non-family-friendly in the geneticular sense, yet it is an artistic classic.
Anyway, my basic opinion here is we need to empower the gallery maintainers with the right to curate, and I don't think we should draw the parameters in too limiting of a way in the CoC.
Bryce
participants (5)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Brynn -
Gez -
Krzysztof Kosiński -
Maren Hachmann