PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu Code of Conduct Updated



23meg
October 21st, 2009, 03:58 AM
I haven't seen this mentioned in the forums, even though there has been plenty of activity on it elsewhere (http://planet.ubuntu.com/) recently, so I thought I'd share the news: the Community Council (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/council) recently approved the updated 1.1 version of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct).

Here are some blog posts detailing and commenting on the changes:

"Updating the Ubuntu Code of Conduct" (http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20091020-00) (Benjamin Mako Hill)
"Ubuntu Code of Conduct v1.1" (http://princessleia.com/journal/?p=2237) (Elizabeth Krumbach)
"Toes of conduct" (http://www.geekosophical.net/?p=343) (Melissa Draper)
"Ubuntu Code of Conduct 1.1" (http://www.mikesplanet.net/2009/10/ubuntu-code-of-conduct-1-1/) (Mike Basinger)

handy
October 21st, 2009, 06:12 AM
So the Toes Clause looks good.

Can you or someone point out the specific changes in the current revision of the CoC please?

Exodist
October 21st, 2009, 06:19 AM
Left out the part that users and Mods shouldn't be trying to sell windows to users (I.e; Promote windows usage.)

handy
October 21st, 2009, 06:29 AM
I've looked around some more, but I keep finding far too much diluted information regarding the changes to the CoC.

If someone could please post a link to, or provide a list of just exactly what are the specific changes that have occurred in this particular revision of the CoC, it will make it so much easier for the community as a whole to be aware of & thus to be able to abide by these new changes?

Mr. Picklesworth
October 21st, 2009, 06:31 AM
I've looked around some more, but I keep finding far too much diluted information regarding the changes to the CoC.

If someone could please post a link to, or provide a list of just exactly what are the specific changes that have occurred in this particular revision of the CoC, it will make it so much easier for the community as a whole to be aware of & thus to be able to abide by these new changes?

Here you go: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mako/ubuntu-codeofconduct/proposed-revision/annotate/head:/rationale.txt (Via Benjamin Mako Hill's blog post (http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20091020-00))

schauerlich
October 21st, 2009, 06:42 AM
Left out the part that users and Mods shouldn't be trying to sell windows to users (I.e; Promote windows usage.)

Promoting Windows is in the CoC.

Giant Speck
October 21st, 2009, 06:42 AM
Left out the part that users and Mods shouldn't be trying to sell windows to users (I.e; Promote windows usage.)

[citation needed]

handy
October 21st, 2009, 07:07 AM
Here you go: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mako/ubuntu-codeofconduct/proposed-revision/annotate/head:/rationale.txt (Via Benjamin Mako Hill's blog post (http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20091020-00))

Thank you Mr. Picklesworth: That was exactly what I desired to see. :)

I for one certainly see no problems with the changes that are very well detailed in the first of your supplied links.

Though I would have thought that the Ubuntu user community; being by my definition the vast majority of those that populate the Ubuntu Forums, would have been given a more official & detailed post, showing exactly what the revised changes are to this new CoC.

Even though in this particular instance, the changes will have very little effect on the members of the forum community here, I still think that whenever changes happen there should be a post like the one here:

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mako/ubuntu-codeofconduct/proposed-revision/annotate/head:/rationale.txt

Made very obvious to the forum users.

After that, there will be next to no question on what changes have happened, it should then all come down to people's attitudes & reactions to the changes.

[Edit:] I've added to the above here & there, if anyone gives a hoot... :)

sertse
October 21st, 2009, 07:10 AM
The SABDFL is not infallible anymore!

cariboo
October 21st, 2009, 07:15 AM
Here's a copy of 1.0.1, if anyone cares to look,

handy
October 21st, 2009, 07:33 AM
Here's a copy of 1.0.1, if anyone cares to look,

It isn't the viewing of CoC that matters, (to me anyway) it is the articulate display (in the simplest way possible) of exactly every change that has been made, that matters.

This is a transparency that simplifies the communication with the ongoing growing thousands of Ubuntu Forum users.

To those that administer the Ubuntu Forums, I say, simplify life for yourself & the UF users, in every way you possibly can. :)

Sand & Mercury
October 21st, 2009, 07:48 AM
I was so sure when I read 'Toes of Conduct' in the opening post that the CoC had been updated with a clause about making fun of RMS...

t0p
October 21st, 2009, 07:49 AM
It isn't the viewing of CoC that matters, (to me anyway) it is the articulate display (in the simplest way possible) of exactly every change that has been made, that matters.

This is a transparency that simplifies the communication with the ongoing growing thousands of Ubuntu Forum users.

To those that administer the Ubuntu Forums, I say, simplify life for yourself & the UF users, in every way you possibly can. :)

Especially since (some) mods/admins (over-) (liberally) dish out infractions for violations of the CoC. It'd help if new rules were pointed out to us. Or are we supposed to go re-read the entire thing every time we want to post?

slakkie
October 21st, 2009, 07:58 AM
The UF has it own CoC: http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy

wilee-nilee
October 21st, 2009, 10:10 AM
Promoting Windows is in the CoC.

I thought it was Mac.

handy
October 21st, 2009, 11:01 AM
Especially since (some) mods/admins (over-) (liberally) dish out infractions for violations of the CoC. It'd help if new rules were pointed out to us. Or are we supposed to go re-read the entire thing every time we want to post?

:lolflag: Really?

I obviously (& truly) don't post a lot here anymore.

Since the Backyard was closed it has become pretty hard (imho) to find a way to upset the mods to the point of infraction. (Except for the people that get personal in a certain other part of the forum.) :(

In the Cafe, it seems to me that a person must choose to push the limits as far as they can in the politco/religious dimension, or be personally degrading to another forum user with their comments.

Under the above mentioned circumstances a user really should know that they are dancing on the edge of having the thread closed.

So have I missed something, or have all of a sudden the mods found another way to infract someone?

I always deserved the infractions that I received in the past for just those very reasons...

schauerlich
October 21st, 2009, 04:28 PM
I thought it was Mac.

That's my own creative interpretation.

kevdog
October 21st, 2009, 05:53 PM
ilove infractions. And just my opinion -- although I find the CoC absolutely necessary -- does anyone actually ever read the CoC other than if they receive an infraction? Its kind of like buying a car or home -- sign here, here, here twice, there 3 times -- congratulations -- even though you really have no idea what you just signed.

Just my 2 cents.

Mr. Picklesworth
October 21st, 2009, 06:10 PM
ilove infractions. And just my opinion -- although I find the CoC absolutely necessary -- does anyone actually ever read the CoC other than if they receive an infraction? Its kind of like buying a car or home -- sign here, here, here twice, there 3 times -- congratulations -- even though you really have no idea what you just signed.

Just my 2 cents.

Yes, actually, I read it because the purpose is quite different from buying a car. If one wants to contribute positively to the community, he should understand the code of conduct.

schauerlich
October 21st, 2009, 06:17 PM
Just to clear up: there are two different CoC's being talked about here. There's the Ubuntu Community CoC, which is what this thread is supposed to be about; and there's the Ubuntu Forums CoC, which is what the last few replies have been about. They're different texts with different scopes.

wilee-nilee
October 21st, 2009, 08:14 PM
That's my own creative interpretation.

I thought you needed a license for that. ;)