Difference between revisions of "Talk:Code of conduct"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Clarification needed for 3rd party installers: re: drop my case, close discussion)
(Extend the no-bots clause for IRC: Suggestion)
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
::I'm not sure I agree re. ESR. It is an exemplary exposition of the critical thinking required to effectively engage with a technical audience. I have no issues with people finding it difficult; this isn't a distro like Ubuntu where popularity is a consideration. Our focus is on contribution, so a degree of proficiency, or the desire to attain proficiency, is a prerequisite. Reading ''Smart Questions'' is a  pretty good gauge of that willingness. [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 06:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 
::I'm not sure I agree re. ESR. It is an exemplary exposition of the critical thinking required to effectively engage with a technical audience. I have no issues with people finding it difficult; this isn't a distro like Ubuntu where popularity is a consideration. Our focus is on contribution, so a degree of proficiency, or the desire to attain proficiency, is a prerequisite. Reading ''Smart Questions'' is a  pretty good gauge of that willingness. [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 06:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  
== Naked pings ==
+
== Fora vs Forums ==
  
I think it would be a good idea to suggest not pinging someone without subject:
+
I noticed that while referring to the plural of "forum", some parts of this page used "fora" while others used "forums". Would it be possible to standardize the plural of "forum" on this page?
  
https://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/02/20/naked-pings/
+
[[User:Somebody62|Somebody62]] ([[User talk:Somebody62|talk]]) 20:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 +
:"fora" generally refers to the various Arch Linux official communities (the forums, IRC, MLs), whereas "forums" is used to specifically denote the bulletin boards (bbs.archlinux.org), which is comprised of a number of different fora. Hope that helps :) [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  
What do you think? -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 21:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
== Extend the no-bots clause for IRC ==
  
:Pretty much [[Code_of_conduct#No_power-posting.2Fempty_posts]] but for IRC -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
+
Recent event's have shown that people interpret the
  
::We can consider pushing this rule upstream to [https://freenode.net/changuide freenode channel guidelines], if they find it useful. -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 00:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
+
* There is only one official channel bot. {{ic|phrik!~archbot@archlinux/bot/phrik}}. Do not spam bot commands and limit your usage to things that are helpful. If you want to bring your own bot into any Arch Linux channel, ask the operators before doing so.
  
== <s>Clarification needed for 3rd party installers</s> ==
+
Rule in very different ways and have been sneaking in bridges to other chat protocols (usually discord) into the #archlinux channel.
 +
This is against freenode's [https://freenode.net/changuide 'no logging without permission' ] guidelines, which the channel operators adopt for #archlinux.
  
[[Code of conduct#Arch Linux distribution support *only*|Arch Linux distribution support *only*]] should at the very least use '''or''' instead of ''', and''' to note that any of these factors already constitutes it as not supported:
+
I would like to extend or supplement that rule with something like:
  
:These distributions often use different packages, package versions, repositories '''or''' make custom system configurations silently
+
* Bridging channels to other communication protocols like discord, matrix, slack, etc. is not allowed without the permission of the channel operators.
  
It may be worth restating directly that 3rd party installers are not supported as well as derivative distributions:
+
* Do not publish logs, processed or not, to the public without asking the operators for permission.
  
:Arch-based distributions '''and unofficial Arch Linux installers''' have their own support forums; their users should be actively encouraged to seek support there.
+
I'm not entirely happy with the explicit mention of these three messengers and would welcome suggestions to generalize it. Merging these two into the existing "no Bots" clause would be fine but I fear it would make it overly long and hard to read.
  
Thoughts? -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 21:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
+
[[User:Namarrgon|Namarrgon]] ([[User talk:Namarrgon|talk]]) 12:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  
:The whole "Arch Linux installers" thing is nonsense, it should not be used on this page. There is one and only one live system capable of installing Arch Linux. If they use different live system for installation, they are not installing Arch, regardless of what the 3rd party developers claim. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
+
:How about: "Do not publish logs without the permission of operators, nor bridge to other protocols like discord, slack etc., without permission". [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 07:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::Sorry for triggering you ;) Maybe instead of using '''Arch-based distributions''' term we just state that only installations supported are installations using [https://www.archlinux.org/download/ official installation media] and using [[Installation guide]] process? That would eliminate both [[Arch-based distributions]] and different 3rd-party installers (that can be used by cloning their repo from github on official live system). -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 22:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::What about [[Archboot]] and [[TalkingArch]]? Those are valid exceptions that we'd have to list should we add such a clause. Or at least link to a page like [[:Category:Getting and installing Arch]]. Not sure this approach would bring much benefit in practice. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 23:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::Even worse, it's not like that everything in [[:Category:Getting and installing Arch]] is supported. E.g. [[Arch Linux VPS]] is mostly "you're on your own"... -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 00:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::How about separating [[:Category:Getting and installing Arch|category]] content into [[Installation methods]] article and point out their support status? I don't like how it is both category and general article.
 
::::I am sure bringing clarity to CoC section will benefit anyone who does not want to explain over and over and argue what is supported and what is not in Arch Linux community, be it forums, IRC or wiki.
 
::::We can't reasonably blacklist 3rd-party installers without admitting they do exist or install something that resembles Arch(but is not Arch). I learned about the one and only proper Arch Linux installation way from our vocal self-protecting community, not because I have read this section which requires familiarity with implication - it is reasonable to assume some may need to look up the word, let alone apply this concept while reading.
 
::::Maybe this is too much effort for no gain and I'm concerned with idiots. But I try to be optimistic in between depressions ;) -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 01:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:::::Whenever someone registers on the forums you get a big warning box (and nothing else) that only Arch and no installers, Manajaro, Antergos whatever are supported. People still file dozens of requests for Debian, Hannah Montanna Linux and TempleOS on the forums on a daily basis. As such, I don't see how making the code of conduct more complicated would improve anything on this regard.
 
:::::I strongly dislike some support status page for installation methods. That implies that fully unsupported methods like random user scripts or Microsoft's WSL have a legitimate place on this wiki -- without requiring any further discussion why they should, as long as they have some "unsupported" status on an hypothetical [[installation methods]] page. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
::::::<s>I don't want to complicate CoC, FWIW having better [[Installation methods]](alternatively [[Arch Linux installation]]) page would give us extra space to explain what is considered Arch Linux installation(s) and what is not without complicating [[Arch Linux]] or obscuring it in talk pages.</s> Never mind this. I should do my homework here and display what I mean beforehand. -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
:Just a note that we actually have a page listing [[Arch-based distributions]] which lists many of that projects that are considered "installers". -- [[User:Rdeckard|Rdeckard]] ([[User_talk:Rdeckard|talk]]) 17:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 
 
 
I did not figure out how to defend my case, so I'm dropping it. Closing. -- [[User:Svito|Svito]] ([[User talk:Svito|talk]]) 16:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 07:55, 2 May 2019

Maybe make the section "correct" more clear

I'd like to see a clearer title for that section and add a little more on how users should effectively ask for help and report issues. ie they need to state the whole problem and what they have already tried as well as logs and error messages. how to report and ask smart questions are both great links.

Maybe "don't ask to ask" could also be added, as in, "can someone help me? My Arch install is broken!" type of messages.Meskarune (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the ask smart questions is such a great link to give people. It's good for understanding our culture but it's not good for smooth relations with people asking questions. However, I do think how to report should be added; it's concise and to the point without risking antagonizing the person with a question. MacGyver (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe https://askubuntu.com/help/how-to-ask would be a better link to use. It is shorter, nicer and clearer than ESR's doc. Meskarune (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree re. ESR. It is an exemplary exposition of the critical thinking required to effectively engage with a technical audience. I have no issues with people finding it difficult; this isn't a distro like Ubuntu where popularity is a consideration. Our focus is on contribution, so a degree of proficiency, or the desire to attain proficiency, is a prerequisite. Reading Smart Questions is a pretty good gauge of that willingness. Jasonwryan (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fora vs Forums

I noticed that while referring to the plural of "forum", some parts of this page used "fora" while others used "forums". Would it be possible to standardize the plural of "forum" on this page?

Somebody62 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"fora" generally refers to the various Arch Linux official communities (the forums, IRC, MLs), whereas "forums" is used to specifically denote the bulletin boards (bbs.archlinux.org), which is comprised of a number of different fora. Hope that helps :) Jasonwryan (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Extend the no-bots clause for IRC

Recent event's have shown that people interpret the

  • There is only one official channel bot. phrik!~archbot@archlinux/bot/phrik. Do not spam bot commands and limit your usage to things that are helpful. If you want to bring your own bot into any Arch Linux channel, ask the operators before doing so.

Rule in very different ways and have been sneaking in bridges to other chat protocols (usually discord) into the #archlinux channel. This is against freenode's 'no logging without permission' guidelines, which the channel operators adopt for #archlinux.

I would like to extend or supplement that rule with something like:

  • Bridging channels to other communication protocols like discord, matrix, slack, etc. is not allowed without the permission of the channel operators.
  • Do not publish logs, processed or not, to the public without asking the operators for permission.

I'm not entirely happy with the explicit mention of these three messengers and would welcome suggestions to generalize it. Merging these two into the existing "no Bots" clause would be fine but I fear it would make it overly long and hard to read.

Namarrgon (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

How about: "Do not publish logs without the permission of operators, nor bridge to other protocols like discord, slack etc., without permission". Jasonwryan (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)