2:27 p.m.
Hi Frank,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche(a)redhat.com> skribis:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:03:46PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > With an eye for the future and on preventing “infiltration”: perhaps
> > we should agree on an acceptance process.
>
> Yes. It just occurred to me that infiltration is simple right now:
> submit a patch to Guix (picking it as an example because the barrier to
> entry is quite low), at which point you can be considered a “GNU
> contributor”, and could apply in bad faith, with the intent of stirring
> dissent.
> [...]
I'm sorry, what is wrong with dissent?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dissent, or I wouldn’t be
here. :-)
What I had in mind above is an infiltration scenario whereby someone
joins, remains within the bounds of acceptable discourse as stated by
the code of conduct, never overtly rejects the values expressed in the
social contract, yet effectively prevents the group from moving forward
by derailing discussions, questioning its foundations, and so forth.
That’s probably more or less the definition of infiltration.
Do you believe the code-of-conduct is insufficient to limit uncivil
conduct? Do you have examples of propositions that you believe must
be unanimous here?
In my view we’ll seek consensus for most decisions, which is not the
same as unanimity—I can consent to a proposal, even if that’s not my
preferred choice.
Ludo’.