Received: by 10.68.232.169 with SMTP id tp9mr709679pbc.6.1333579388175;
        Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: r9ni19154pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.mozilla.org!news.mozilla.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:43:07 -0500
Return-Path: <pos...@giganews.com>
X-Original-To: mozilla-governa...@lists.mozilla.org
Delivered-To: mozilla-governa...@lists.mozilla.org
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org
Received-SPF: softfail (giganews.com: Sender is not authorized by default to
	use 'pos...@giganews.com' in 'mfrom' identity, however domain
	is not currently prepared for false failures (mechanism '~all'
	matched)) receiver=notorious.mozilla.org; identity=mailfrom;
	envelope-from="pos...@giganews.com";
	helo=mailstar.serv1.aus.datafoundry.com; client-ip=209.99.125.30
X-Authentication-Warning: serv1.gc.dca.giganews.com: news set sender to
	pos...@giganews.com using -f
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:42:44 -0700
From: Jeff Walden <jwalden+...@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Mozilla Code of Conduct: next steps
References: <mailman.16921.1332421569.31724.governance@lists.mozilla.org>
	<mailman.17496.1332779051.31724.governance@lists.mozilla.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.17496.1332779051.31724.governance@lists.mozilla.org>
X-DF-Seen-By: ms
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@mozilla.org
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
	properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Newsgroups: mozilla.governance
To: mozilla-governa...@lists.mozilla.org
X-BeenThere: governa...@lists.mozilla.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the governance and running of the Mozilla project
	<governance.lists.mozilla.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.mozilla.org/options/governance>,
	<mailto:governance-requ...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:governa...@lists.mozilla.org>
List-Help: <mailto:governance-requ...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>,
	<mailto:governance-requ...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=subscribe>
Approved: governa...@lists.mozilla.org
Message-ID: <mailman.19304.1333579386.31724.governa...@lists.mozilla.org>
Lines: 22
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.245.208.166
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace: sv3-fkSawR44KSkX77/j15zekGzFDpoW26mY4JNEXNXrnzOpKu1CtWnFROEOftJxACtOvj5KLykkUkWNwDA!lVupFswFyR56mxeDHOHIggOF0Ken5pT6pL0x5MHxZioDguUi9Dg/LWM/qu4W2yRlhmDhgjkq5mnH!NE6wn3Ruo/SjltlW+KajUt6fqZEBsGdhnw==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@mozilla.org
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@mozilla.org
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4777
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm a bit late to this entire discussion, having been too busy for approximately the last month writing code to engage here at all.  And probably I can't devote enough time to skim (let alone read, let alone fully understand) all several hundred messages during that time.  So keep that in mind if I rehash something already hashed to a mashed potato mess.

On 03/26/2012 09:23 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The code says:
> 
> "we explicitly honour diversity in ... religion, ...".
> 
> Who is "we", and what does it mean to "honour"?
> 
> Suggestion: how about "as a community, we explicitly welcome people of
> diverse ... religion, ... etc."? Or perhaps other people can think of
> different introductory words which don't hit the problem noted above.

I have some of the same concerns about the original language, at least depending upon how it might be interpreted.  I believe reasonable people can, could, and would interpret it differently.  This would reduce its effectiveness as part of a code of conduct.  Gerv's suggestion moves in the right direction.  That said, I would build it out more so that it's more explicit about what "welcome" means.  I think the wording below goes to the Mozilla spirit a bit more directly -- that we welcome whatever anyone wants to contribute.  And its language tries to affirm the sense of community it would seem to me a code of conduct should foster.  How does this alternative go over with anyone?

Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly welcome
people of diverse age, [...], subculture, and technical ability
to the Mozilla community.  We value their participation.  We
value their contributions, of code, of time, of ideas, in whatever
form they might come.  And above all: we welcome them as friends.

Jeff