[04:33] General invite to -- #openhatch - a discussion participating in Open Source Communities -- -- Want to learn more about Openhatch? visit http://openhatch.org/ [04:34] 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] svaksha: hello, I would like to know how is https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodeOfConductGuidelines proceeding, it at all [16:33] hggdh: hi. i'm not sure i understood what you mean [16:34] 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] i assume he means are you still trying to get the CC to +1 it [16:34] maco: ah, ok [16:34] svaksha: yes, it is old (and also marked as draft). But it is good... [16:35] yes, it would be nice to keep on [16:35] maco: hggdh , afaik, the CC didnt approve it. maybe some points were taken to the existing official CoC [16:36] but this was just a draft made after some incidents in the ubuntu community [16:36] hggdh: thanks (re good) [16:36] yeah, I sort of remember the issues [16:36] svaksha: my pleasure. Pity it got blocked [16:36] * svaksha shrugs [16:37] thanks for reminding me, i had forgotten it exists :) [16:40] yw [16:41] it needs polishing though...i'll be happy if you or anyone else wants to take it upon themselve to improve it [16:42] maybe even work on getting CC approval <-- a bonus :) [16:47] interesting document, haven't seen that one before [16:48] svaksha: will try [16:56] 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] isn't that the point? [17:02] also there is nothing in the CoC about DR <-- that is important [17:03] AlanBell: isnt that a loophole? one who does not sign it can get away with misbehaviour [17:10] in ubuntu fora (forums, irc, mailing lists) even non-signers are expected to abide by it [17:14] maco: i'm probably speaking with the old incidents in mind :) [17:40] 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] 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] 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] 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] hggdh: I run into you in more places :) [18:22] nigelb: heh. I am not usually here, only came in to ask a Q [18:23] hggdh: ah :) [18:24] .c [18:53] hggdh, ignorantia iuris neminem excusat - ignorance of the law excuse no one :-) [18:53] excuses even [18:53] common in all legal sytems I think [18:55] indeed [18:55] at least on the two I know of ;-) [19:58] 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)