Re: request for comment re "contributor-covenant.org"

27 Jan 2016

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/27/2016 06:17 AM, Peter Tonoli wrote:
...
On the other hand, I can't see Cypherpunks agreeing to a 'code
of conduct', or adhering to it.
I haven't been around here long enough to dare presume to speak on
behalf of the cpunks list regs, but it was my impression that the
list does have a code of conduct.  I can't find my copy, but I
believe it reads "Fuck you, I do what I want."  Not sure of the
exact wording but it's something to that effect IIRC.

It seems to be working OK here so far.  Ain't broke, don't fix it.
 If you don't like it, go elsewhere; anarchy ain't for everybody.

In re FLOSS development and its social infrastructure:

In any healthy and productive engineering shop, physical or
virtual, outside observers who assume that a primate pecking order
defines and governs /all/ human social roles and behaviors may be
forgiven for seeing a "meritocracy" where none exists.  In a
healthy, productive engineering shop, anyone who contributes to
the practical objectives of the project is valued as a team member
and encouraged to continue doing so.  Those who are in a position
to make large and highly visible contributions may thereby become
"popular" but this does not confer authority on them, and is not
an obstacle to anyone else's contributions.

Of course there are dysfunctional engineering shops, commercial
and non-commercial.  Introducing policies requiring the
participants in a toxic work environment promise to play nice, and
promise to punish those who do not, would only compound existing
abuses of power by adding a fresh layer of passive aggressive
posturing and manipulation.

Re: request for comment re "contributor-covenant.org"

Steve Kinney