Re: [opennic-discuss] Thoughts on Code of Conduct (and lack thereof)
kevin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.opennic.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I vote так or was that Igen or ja or 是 Anyhow, enough with google translate. I am prepared to fork and peer openNIC if this goes much further, with anyone who is interested in that route, as well. I did NOT join openNIC to become another ICANN and I have no problem if that is what some of the members want. But I will definitely not participate if that is where we are going with openNIC. I DO believe that openNIC, at least (as I posted before) was originally intended to be something other than or possibly more than ICANN, in a less restrictive way. I would prefer that those who want to be an ICANN alternative take that idea and fork into the vision they see fit. I see this as a tremendously divisive topic and maybe I am only part of a small minority here. I don't think this will end well. Kevin On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 21:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > It does seem like a code of conduct is being > discussed here. > > My opinion is that laws and regulations are not > a solution in most cases. They work in a society > where we have courts and police. We have no such > functions here, and if we did, who would fulfil > those roles? > > Some people revel in bureaucracy and making rules > and setting up structures. I understand the > appeal in that, and indeed it's usefulness. But > keep in mind that we have so few people involved > here that, in my opinion, it starts to look like > a farce when we discuss rules and regulations. > > Many here wish to grow the organization, and > setting up a more rigid structure may be a good > prerequisite to that. However, in such a case we > would lose a lot of what some of us find good about > OpenNIC. Are we simply an alternative to ICANN, or > is there more going on here? > > I personally like the freedom experienced by this > group, and becoming another ICANN would be the > opposite of what I would prefer to consider. Others > no doubt have an opposing opinion. I asked earlier > in this discussion, are we going to fork OpenNIC? > I honestly believe that this is the only solution > to the, seemingly forceful, ideas being presented > lately. I don't think forking is a viable solution > at this point, so the only conclusion that I can > come up with is to leave well enough alone. At > least for now. > > Regards, > Ole > > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:54:54 -0400 > Rouben <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > After trying to keep up with the recent threads and votes > > around what is, essentially, conduct, I kept thinking: > > why doesn’t OpenNIC have a code of conduct? IMO rather > > than introduce reactive policy proposals, wouldn’t it be > > best to have a code of conduct instead, and perhaps even > > a formal statement of purpose? > > > > Here’s a few examples from high profile open source > > projects: https://www.ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct > > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct > > > > I rather like the Ubuntu one, because it is an example of > > an organization with a relatively mature governance > > structure. > > > > The Arch code of conduct is probably the most practical > > with lots of details on a number of etiquette points, > > like quoting posts and bumping old threads. > > > > Gentoo’s is an example of a “short and to the point” > > style, with pretty much two sections: acceptable and > > unacceptable behaviours. > > > > Just thinking out loud here... > > > > Rouben > > > > -------- > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected] > ect.org -- http://ca.linkedin.com/in/kevinrattai/ https://plus.google.com/+KevinRattai/ https://community.spiceworks.com/people/kevinrattai -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]