An Open Letter to the Open Source Community

[Peter Whittaker]

Long email. Summary: The CoC is sufficient as it stands, because of four
key words. Be considerate. Be respectful.

Application of those four simple words in this context is described
below. Please, read on.

On Tue, 2007-29-05 at 10:12 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> I don't think that Arwyn was suggesting adding more rules, only to clarify
> the existing rules to be more explicit.

Where would the clarifications go? In the CoC, or in an interpretation
document? I'll come back to the former, below, but for the latter, would
it have the same relationship to the CoC as, say, the Federalist Papers
do to the US constitution? In other words,

 * none - from a strictly statutory and constitutional perspective as
they have no statutory standing of their own, a perspective I understand
to be preferred by many who believe in a living, breathing, plastic
constitution, modifiable to suit one's tastes, be they left or right?

 * some - from a judicial/interpretative perspective, in the sense that
they are used to understand what the framers "really meant", a
perspective I understand to be preferred by many who believe in a more
static, minimalist constitution that, as it is now, supports their
tastes, be they left or right?

 * something else entirely, whatever that may mean?

I fully expect this apparent tangent will lead to side discussions of
the merits of the American model Vs others, with eventual transgressions
(or would that be adherences to?) Godwin's Law, among others.

Be that as it may.

The meta-point I wish to make by bringing in an apparently irrelevant
tangent is that as soon as we embark upon any extensive exercise in rule
making or interpretative guidance or what have you, we embark upon that
slippery slope of endless back and forth and this is what we really
meant oh says you and this is enough no it isn't we need to include this
no we don't.

Please, let's not go there....

> One possible reason for a lack of compliance with the CoC is that it's
> rather general and subjective on some points, and so it isn't entirely clear
> to everyone how it applies to a specific situation like this.

Humans are notoriously hard to pin down, always wiggling around whatever
rules one attempts to impose. Good moral guidance - which is what the
CoC is, call it ethical or etiquetical if you will, it's all the same in
the end, endless semantic discussions spiralling away to an ad nauseam
extent surpassed only by their constitutional brethren - is brief.

And it is subjective. Because moral/ethical/etiquetical beliefs and
standards vary. We - the Ubuntu community - have settled our subjective
judgement on the CoC as the standard by which our discussions and
actions will be judged.

If rules are so well defined as to require neither thought nor
introspection nor occasional rediscussion, then they are poor
guidelines, too specific, and too likely to apply too narrowly and be
misobserved by more people more often than we would like.

Be considerate. Be respectful.

Those are good rules.

We don't need much more. Not in the CoC.

What we do need are respectful and considerate reminders that Ubuntu
fora of all forms - mailing lists, chat channels, web pages, etc. - are
for Ubuntu-relevant discussions held in atmosphere of respect and
consideration. This means respecting that we are in those fora to
discuss Ubuntu and FLOSS and things related to Ubuntu and FLOSS.

Not our desires to get drunk or laid or promoted or left behind or to
make fun or to tease or to be teased or to abuse or to be abused.

"Hey baby, wanna hookup, you hot Linux chick, you?" is entirely
appropriate in #linuxsex.

And it has nothing to do with Ubuntu, with FLOSS, or with any other
subject that may rightfully call Ubuntu fora home.

Be polite. Remind the poster of this. Again and again and again.
Politely, respectfully, considerately.

That's how the CoC applies, AFAICT, IM(NS)HO. YMMV.

pww

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20070530/ee7f47d5/attachment.pgp