11:16 p.m.
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 07:12:34PM -0600, Mark Galassi wrote:
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.
I agree: we should exclude the notion of "non-endorsing member".
You really don't want people who don't endorse. That's one of our
main points here: to offer a healthy environment.
To give examples of what happens when you don't have norms in
place,
here are articles from gnu.misc.discuss (and they scrubbed the worse
-- sometimes you only see it quoted):
[Examples deleted]
or in the private gnu lists (no links to archives available, and I
won't forward any literal text since it is a private list) the
naming of specific people for backstabber awards.
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.
I do agree. And I know you mean well by showing some of the worst
things going on. But I wish you hadn't pointed to one of the active
doxxing campaigns going on, please don't amplify them.
Thanks,
Mark
> 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.
>