mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[Justin Zheng <justin.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>]

But the point of a CoC is that there's some sort of standard for all
participants to follow. Also, so that people who are unsure of whether they
want to participate can see what the community values and will allow/not
allow.

Also, completely off topic:You write in a pretty frustrating (imo) pedantic
way that doesn't help get your point across. I'd appreciate it if you
didn't do that.


On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 6:18 PM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Justin Zheng <justin.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Luke, maybe write a draft CoC that you think should be implemented?
>
>  ah, thank you: a question.  it's very simple: the code of honour
> (honor if you use U.S.) spelling.  it's four lines long:
>
>  * always do good
>  * never do harm
>  * the code applies 100% of the time
>  * everyone knows the code.
>
> that's it.  that's all there is to it.  it's extremely simple, is
> rhythmic, both characteristics that make it extremely easy to
> memorise, and has absolutely nothing that could possibly be toxic
> about it.
>
>  there is one "downside" of such a deceptively-simple code: should
> incidents occur, it requires people to think about what the
> definitions of "good" and "harm" actually are.  ways to "deal" with
> that are where mistakes get made, in "unpacking" the definitions of
> "good" (which can never be complete) and "harm", which turn into the
> most awful and dangerously toxic (and never complete) "proscribed
> lists of behaviours".
>
>  thank you for - at last - asking a question.
>
> l.
>