[04:33] <svaksha> General invite to -- #openhatch - a discussion participating in Open Source Communities -- -- Want to learn more about Openhatch? visit  http://openhatch.org/
[04:34] <svaksha> we are discussing how to make it easier to contribute/search LP , https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-women/2010-October/003033.html
[16:31] <hggdh> svaksha: hello, I would like to know how is https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodeOfConductGuidelines proceeding, it at all
[16:33] <svaksha> hggdh: hi. i'm not sure i understood what you mean
[16:34] <maco> svaksha: i told him to ask you about it because he asked me whether there was still an effort with that, and id never seen it before, but you wrote it
[16:34]  * svaksha notes that it is an OLD document
[16:34] <maco> i assume he means are you still trying to get the CC to +1 it
[16:34] <svaksha> maco: ah, ok
[16:34] <hggdh> svaksha: yes, it is old (and also marked as draft). But it is good...
[16:35] <hggdh> yes, it would be nice to keep on
[16:35] <svaksha> maco: hggdh , afaik, the CC didnt approve it. maybe some points were taken to the existing official CoC
[16:36] <svaksha> but this was just a draft made after some incidents in the ubuntu community
[16:36] <svaksha> hggdh: thanks (re good)
[16:36] <hggdh> yeah, I sort of remember the issues
[16:36] <hggdh> svaksha: my pleasure. Pity it got blocked
[16:36]  * svaksha shrugs
[16:37] <svaksha> thanks for reminding me, i had forgotten it exists :)
[16:40] <hggdh> yw
[16:41] <svaksha> it needs polishing though...i'll be happy if you or anyone else wants to take it upon themselve to improve it
[16:42] <svaksha> maybe even work on getting CC approval <-- a bonus :)
[16:47] <AlanBell> interesting document, haven't seen that one before
[16:48] <hggdh> svaksha: will try
[16:56] <svaksha> the dispute resolution document and this came around the same time. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodeOfConductDisputeResolution
[16:59]  * svaksha thinks a CoC is complete when ALL points are addressed. Currently signing the CoC puts more conditions on those that agree, than on those that dont sign it. 
[17:00] <AlanBell> isn't that the point?
[17:02] <svaksha> also there is nothing in the CoC about DR <-- that is important
[17:03] <svaksha> AlanBell: isnt that a loophole? one who does not sign it can get away with misbehaviour
[17:10] <maco> in ubuntu fora (forums, irc, mailing lists) even non-signers are expected to abide by it
[17:14] <svaksha> maco: i'm probably speaking with the old incidents in mind :)
[17:40] <hggdh> well, there is a(n old) saying that goes something like 'when you enter a city, abide by its rules'. Not signing the CoC does not free one from abiding to it
[17:43] <hggdh> so I do not see a loophole there. Having the CoC clears out the ground, and sets a minimum level. By signing it, I would be acknowledging I _intend_ to abide.
[17:44] <hggdh> But, by not signing it I am also -- by default -- acknowledging that I either do not know of its existence, or do not care for it. But it still binds me
[17:46] <hggdh> I remember the first article of the Penal Code of the country I was born in: "to nobody is given not knowing the law"
[18:21]  * nigelb blinks
[18:22] <nigelb> hggdh: I run into you in more places :)
[18:22] <hggdh> nigelb: heh. I am not usually here, only came in to ask a Q
[18:23] <nigelb> hggdh: ah :)
[18:24] <czajkowski> .c
[18:53] <akgraner> hggdh,  ignorantia iuris neminem excusat - ignorance of the law excuse no one :-)
[18:53] <akgraner> excuses even
[18:53] <nigelb> common in all legal sytems I think
[18:55] <hggdh> indeed
[18:55] <hggdh> at least on the two I know of ;-)
[19:58] <JanC> actually it's common in government laws, but not in the "private laws" inside schools, companies, etc. (you often have to sign that you know the rules there)