[Ambassadors] Red Hat's investments (was Re: Going passive)

Bruno Wolff III bruno at wolff.to
Fri Nov 26 16:22:46 UTC 2010

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:02:21 -0500,
  Greg DeKoenigsberg <greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. No swearing.  No exceptions.  (I look forward to the first time I get
> kickbanned from the list for violating this one.)

I don't like that, but can live with it. But please clarify if that includes
things like '%$&!' where people don't type a particular swear word, but
indicate they are swearing and perhaps also cases where a particular
swear is indicated, but not spelled out (e.g. f'ing).

> 4. The CWG needs a standard policy for violations.  Maybe something like
> this:

We could use shunning. When people say things you (the general you, not you
in particular) don't like, rather than start longs threads of name calling,
you just stop responding to them.
> 5. Hold Redhatters and non-Redhatters alike responsible for their words.  I
> think there's a perception, fair or not, that Redhatters get away with
> more.

I'd expect that Red Hat employees would be more likely to behave because their
employer has leverage over them and incentive to get its employees to behave
to help the project.

Anyway, I'd rather see language where 'Red Hat' doesn't appear at all in the
enforcement guidelines.

More information about the advisory-board mailing list