First version done: https://www.apertus.org/code-of-conduct

I am happy to hear feedback, ideas, suggestions, addtions, corrections, etc.

Why is this needed, and what does it do?

In T1107#15440, @allan wrote:

Why is this needed, and what does it do?

See the first paragraph of the code of conduct :)

So I am answering in a context where this CoC already applies?
I don't really care to read it extremely carefully, for the same reason I think it fails already in general at this point of entry.

Having studied the ingress, I am now rich with platitudes and truisms. None of which answer my question.

On the off chance that I am missing why Apertus hasn't thus far been "productive, welcoming and fruitful",
what does this change? Was it not possible to "cooperate effectively in a positive and inspiring atmosphere" before?
It seems the proof is in the non-CoC pudding wrt. results thus far. Etc.

On the basis of accounting for violent people, or cultural differences, I don't see why reading a textfile changes behaviour. Nor how it can replace upbringing and rearing of children. That seems to be the point at which this CoC picks up.

One that interestingly says not to RTFM, though I suppose the tonality of that statement is the behaviour one wishes to combat.
I also fail to understand how the complexity of human behaviour can possibly be condensed into a readable format that isn't a waste of time.

On the topic of being redundant to unwritten rules, or law, has any of this actually happened, and how is this textfile going to change matters?

However effective or unfruitful it may be, I find it otherwise condescending to be lectured in the simplest of terms.

Linus started, built and led the biggest and by far most impactful free software project by being angry, at times. Because he is, sometimes. Every (?) time for good reason.
Then he made Git, which apart from meritocracy, is what powers free software per 2018. With the same, sometimes angry attitude, he has managed to bring the cost
and efficiency of collaboration in free software to unprecedented levels. Swearing reduces anger, but somehow Linus must be held to super-superhuman standards? Taking him out of his Finnish context is a disservice to the cultural appreciation of whoever wants to accept him and his culture.
There is every reason to believe seratonin-production as it relates to naturally forming hierarchies, and knurling of the pre-frontal cortex controls respectively dominance and agreeableness.
Objectifying Linus as wrong because Linus says so, at an older age, is vilifying pathology. I don't think he _can_ change, certainly not in retrospect.
If I'm guessing he did it to teach his daughter a lesson.

To subject him or a project that aims to likens itself to Linux or Git, to some sort of professionalism would be a farce, with many comparative structures producing subpar operating systems with every bit of
corporate behaviour required. Recent events has done nothing to attract developers, actually to the contrary.
The same goes for the FreeBSD effort to this effect. CoCs have produced no meaningful morality since the judeo-christian church started, onwards through the mafia, to present day,
that I am aware of. I am saddened to see Apertus employ one, though having a point of contact posted is great. That is however not a code for conduct. That is an escalation of conflict.

This document is not logical onto itself, for reasons too numerous to get into.
In all its ill logic, it seems to be a self-ratifying entity that specifically prohibits such behaviour.

CHANGES TO TASK DESCRIPTION

"Lets create a code of conduct on the website which we all agree on"
↓
"We want to create a code of conduct. Lets discuss the content."

How about instead discussing its validity? Jumping hoops over the need and nature of having a CoC is not a way to exalt authority.

Appeal to Linus doesn't work when it is isn't. Everything Linus has done that has worked, has not been under the aegis of an egregious CoC.
RMS is clever enough to not put up a CoC, no (?) backlash.

If here to work, or here to have fun, it seems getting work done works either way. Interestingly, it works just fine without. OTOH, I don't think these rules are fun, and neither do you. Case in point, sexualised jokes in every team video.
Never change.

"people express interest in joining our community and wanting to contribute but it does not work out in the end, they disappear again - often soon after making first contact. We never know the reasons and don't have the resources to follow up with all of them." - SP.

Assuming that a CoC would solve this to any degree is probably clutching at straws, as they say. I'd be surprised if anyone, anywhere, would ever bother to read it. In fact I'd go so far as to say that if someone does bother to read it then watch out, because there could be trouble afoot - Meaning, it's likely that film-making or hardware and software development isn't what they're interested in... it's something else.

It seems fairly obvious what the problems are imho.

1. The learning curve is steep (as Sebastian mentioned).
2. Phabricator (it's strange and complex).
3. Delivery.

For the record, during my discussions with Lulzbot (who have both Phab and a typical forum) it transpired that they regretted starting a Phabricator (I'm not sure whether that sentiment was something that was felt in the beginning only or not - they still use both a forum and Phab).

Of course, putting the forum back online presents problems (mainly admin and spam) but we took the decision to take it down for the time-being for good reason. Here we start treading into the waters of demographics again. Specifically how, yes it's possible to bring makers into the project and thereby ship more Developer Kits to those people, but there are certain things that need to be in place in an ideal world. The camera is emerging in the gap that exists between two very divergent and polarised user-groups. That gap is quite wide. There's little chance that a film maker can be bothered to figure out the mad layouts inside Phabricator (which is worse on mobile) and glean the intricacies of the project's development that way, and only slightly more chance that a programmer can, it seems.

On the other-hand, at this stage of the project, the main topic that's on the mind of our dominating user-group (in terms of numbers) is delivery. So the most active threads in a forum would be various people arriving at various times and asking "What's going on? When is the Compact version of the camera shipping?" etc.

Opening a typical forum would be a sensible move upon or close to the shipment of AXIOM Beta Compact. Whereupon it can be assumed that activity in that kind of setting might help to meld engagements between our core user-groups.

Getting back to a CoC - The idea of laying out lots of guidelines and what would surely be perceived as 'rules' by the onlooker makes me a little uncomfortable. There's a chance it may even be counterproductive. I'm not saying that it's something that should be totally avoided forever, but if we do embark on such an undertaking then a CoC should be very thin. As thin as possible. At the moment I think prioritising is best directed elsewhere as many of you know. Put it this way if we were to put the notion of getting our heads together about what should and shouldn't be included in a CoC out there in a poll I don't think it would be greatly received.

Still, don't let what I've said put you off if a CoC is something the community wants.

High five!

In T1107#15445, @allan wrote:

Case in point, sexualised jokes in every team video.
Never change.

Sexualised jokes?! What's the sexualised jokes? Is this about uranus?

There's nothing funny about uranus by the way. It's where the printers are. Actually there's a robotic arm in uranus but it needs configured.

Uranus is full to bursting. Sebastian has been talking about getting a T-shirt printer but there's no space in uranus.

The reason it is hard to join the Apertus community in a way that is meaningful to being beneficial in any way is not the lack of a CoC.
Drawing attention and doing meaningful things with it fails because there is no landing page explaining why the project is different.
For what little impact I have had, I really want to avoid contributing anything to a CoC-project. Also making that landing page and
trying to reorganize the wiki turned out to be unwanted effort, so maybe I am wrong and this CoC is the sign of a project that really
knows what it is doing, and there is a real community behind it.

As for actual development, be it advocacy, or turning screws, make it easy to receive updates on design, and share updates more often.
This also ties into the news cycle, meaning it hits affiliated networks too.
Mastodon seems to be a good platform for microblog style updates and fun, Liberapay also would give some publicity and small income.
Put production and the development room on a livestream.
https://joinpeertube.org/en/ https://framatube.org ?

Get rid of Google Groups. It is proprietary, it does not align with the project, nor aid it in discussion.

Yeah the landing page is an issue. Unfortunately the key people who're in the process of its reformatting are currently engaged with the camera's UI and it's pretty important that they're not disturbed.

But yeah, agreed. Improvements are ongoing.

btw there were some other valid points raised in this thread (like the move from google groups -> mailman that we are considering/thinking about for some time already) that would deserve a separate task here on the lab.