7:50 a.m.
Hi Mark,
Mark Galassi <mark(a)galassi.org> skribis:
Ludo had mentioned:
>> I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will become
>> moot. Perhaps we should just exclude that notion in fact, since
>> non-endorsing members are probably going to be rare.
[...]
We want our projects and lists to have a code of conduct and the
ability to remove toxic immature trolling when it becomes a problem.
To be clear, by “non-endorsing members”, I meant people who do not
endorse the Social Contract, but this people would still be subject to
the code of conduct in my mind—this is not negotiable, for the reasons
you gave.
Ricardo mentions:
> Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who disagree
> with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as needed! We
don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we bring up our
thoughts.
But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts that might
need it.
That makes sense to me.
Thanks,
Ludo’.