Ludo had mentioned:
> I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will
> 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):
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
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.
Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who
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
But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts that might