Proposal for ML conduct

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 08:56:52AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 15.05.2009 08:31, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:04 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> [...]
>> Things went from bad to much much worse in a very short amount of time,
>> at least in our perspective.  Waiting longer to fix things doesn't feel
>> like the answer.
>
> Dictating something from the top without bothering to ask those that are  
> effected by the decision(¹) imho isn't either.

I seem to recall it being asked, perhaps not directly, in the past.  The
standard response was 'create a code of conduct'.  Except those don't really
help anything, other than to allow a nanny to point back to it and say "Now,
now Billy.  That isn't nice and you shouldn't be doing that.  See, it says so
right here in our handbook."

So the nanny still exists.  But in this case, I think _our_ nannies will be
a bit more constructive when pointing out errors to people.  It won't be 'go
read this blanket statement about what we find acceptable.'  It will instead
be directed to the person, why it was unacceptable, etc.  Sure, you can do
that with a code of conduct to, but if the end result is the same then why
bother to spend the weeks/months to get one drafted, vetted, and approved?

I don't think the Board is acting inappropriately here.  Why don't we give them
a chance to do what they are elected to do and lead an initiative.  Wait and
see how it turns out, and if it seems to be completely wrong _then_ we can
call them to task and start discussing the need for something else.

josh