General Resolution: code of conduct

General Resolution: code of conduct
Skip Quicknav
Blog
Micronews
Planet
Wiki
Debian Voting Information
2014
General Resolution: code of conduct
Home Vote Page
How To
Submit a Proposal
Amend a Proposal
Follow a Proposal
Decided
Debian Project Leader Elections 2026
Debian Project Leader Elections 2025
Debian Project Leader Elections 2024
General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Debian Project Leader Elections 2023
General Resolution: non-free firmware
Debian Project Leader Elections 2022
General Resolution: Voting secrecy
General Resolution: Change the resolution process
General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Debian Project Leader Elections 2021
Debian Project Leader Elections 2020
General Resolution: Init systems and systemd
Debian Project Leader Elections 2019
Debian Project Leader Elections 2018
Debian Project Leader Elections 2017
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
General Resolution: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
Debian Project Leader Elections 2016
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
Debian Project Leader Elections 2015
General Resolution: Limiting the term of the technical committee members
General Resolution: init system coupling
General Resolution: code of conduct
Debian Project Leader Elections 2014
Debian Project Leader Elections 2013
General Resolution: Diversity statement
Debian Project Leader Elections 2012
Debian Project Leader Elections 2011
General Resolution: Debian project members
Debian Project Leader Elections 2010
Debian Project Leader Elections 2009
General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
General Resolution: Project membership procedures
Debian Project Leader Elections 2008
Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
General Resolution: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers
General Resolution: Altering package upload rules
Debian Project Leader Elections 2007
General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
General Resolution: Recall the project leader
General Resolution: Position statement clarifying DFSG #2
Constitutional Amendment General Resolution: Handling assets for the project
Debian Project Leader Elections 2006
General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives
Debian Project Leader Elections 2005
General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract
General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
Debian Project Leader Elections 2004
Constitutional Amendment: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5
Constitutional Amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD Voting Method
Debian Project Leader Elections 2003
Debian Project Leader Elections 2002
Leader Elections 2001
Leader Elections 2000
Swap Logos
New Logo
Logo License
Leader Elections 1999
Constitution
Withdrawn
General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models
General Resolution: tag2upload
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
General Resolution: Sponsorship requirements for General Resolutions
General Resolution: Force AMD64 architecture into Sarge
IRC as a Debian communication channel
Other
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Non-free Archive Removal
General Resolution: code of conduct
Time Line
Proposer
Seconds
Text
Amendment Proposer A
Amendment Seconds A
Amendment Text A
Quorum
Data and Statistics
Majority Requirement
Outcome
Time Line
Proposal and amendment
Wednesday, 12th February 2014
Discussion Period:
Monday, 10th March, 2014
Voting Period:
Monday, April 14
st
, 00:00:00 UTC, 2014
Sunday, April 27
th
, 23:59:59 UTC, 2014
Proposer
Wouter Verhelst [
wouter@debian.org
text of proposal
Accepting amendement
Call for vote
Seconds
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio [
asb@debian.org
] [
mail
Neil McGovern [
neilm@debian.org
] [
mail
Thijs Kinkhorst [
thijs@debian.org
] [
mail
Paul Tagliamonte [
paultag@debian.org
] [
mail
Ian Jackson [
iwj@debian.org
] [
mail
Sylvestre Ledru [
sylvestre@debian.org
] [
mail
Stuart Prescott [
stuart@debian.org
] [
mail
Lars Wirzenius [
lars@debian.org
] [
mail
Text
Choice 1: Accept CoC, DPL can update it
The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within the project.
Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the
DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian
Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure.
The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format.
Amendment Proposer A
Neil McGovern [
neilm@debian.org
Text of original amendements
Accepting amendements
confirm accepting amendements
Amendment Seconds A
Thijs Kinkhorst [
thijs@debian.org
] [
mail
Paul Tagliamonte [
paultag@debian.org
] [
mail
Sylvestre Ledru [
sylvestre@debian.org
] [
mail
Stuart Prescott [
stuart@debian.org
] [
mail
Lars Wirzenius [
lars@debian.org
] [
mail
Amendment Text A
Choice 2: Accept CoC, updates via GR
The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within the project.
Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR
procedure. However, the DPL (or the DPL's delegates) can add or
remove links to other documents in the "Further reading" section
after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR.
The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format.
Initial text of the code of conduct
# Debian Code of Conduct

## Be respectful

In a project the size of Debian, inevitably there will be people with
whom you may disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that,
but even so, remain respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor
behaviour or personal attacks, and a community in which people feel
threatened is not a healthy community.

## Assume good faith

Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a
[free](https://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may
differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this
goal.

Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or
may have different cultural backgrounds

## Be collaborative

Debian is a large and complex project; there is always more to learn
within Debian. It's good to ask for help when you need it. Similarly,
offers for help should be seen in the context of our shared goal of
improving Debian.

When you make something for the benefit of the project, be willing to
explain to others how it works, so that they can build on your work to
make it even better.

## Try to be concise

Keep in mind that what you write once will be read by hundreds of
persons. Writing a short email means people can understand the
conversation as efficiently as possible. When a long explanation is
necessary, consider adding a summary.

Try to bring new arguments to a conversation so that each mail adds
something unique to the thread, keeping in mind that the rest of the
thread still contains the other messages with arguments that have
already been made.

Try to stay on topic, especially in discussions that are already fairly
large.

## Be open

Most ways of communication used within Debian allow for public and
private communication. As per paragraph three of the [social
contract](https://www.debian.org/social_contract), you should preferably
use public methods of communication for Debian-related messages, unless
posting something sensitive.

This applies to messages for help or Debian-related support, too; not
only is a public support request much more likely to result in an answer
to your question, it also makes sure that any inadvertent mistakes made
by people answering your question will be more easily detected and
corrected.

## In case of problems

While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we
recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of
some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you may
reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages may be
in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However,
regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still
adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, it
should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is more
likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than that
they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion.

Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently
banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be
made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication
forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators,
please see [the page on Debian's organizational
structure](https://www.debian.org/intro/organization)

# Further reading

Some of the links in this section do not refer to documents that are
part of this code of conduct, nor are they authoritative within Debian.
However, they all do contain useful information on how to conduct
oneself on our communication channels.

- Debian has a [diversity statement](https://www.debian.org/intro/diversity)
- The [Debian Community Guidelines](https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/)
by Enrico Zini contain some advice on how to communicate effectively.
- The [Mailing list code of
conduct](https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct) is useful for
advice specific to Debian mailing lists
Quorum
With the current list of
voting
developers
, we have:
Current Developer Count = 1002
Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.8271917913444
K min(5, Q ) = 5
Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.4815753740332
Quorum
Option1 Reached quorum: 205 > 47.4815753740332
Option2 Reached quorum: 228 > 47.4815753740332
Data and Statistics
For this GR, like always,
statistics
will be gathered about ballots received and
acknowledgements sent periodically during the voting
period.
Additionally, the list of voters will be
recorded. Also, the tally
sheet will also be made available to be viewed.
Additionally, the list of
voters
will be
recorded. Also, the
tally
sheet
will also be made available to be viewed.
Majority Requirement
The proposal needs simple majority
Majority
Option1 passes Majority.
2.847 (205/72) >= 1
Option2 passes Majority.
4.302 (228/53) >= 1
Outcome
In the graph above, any pink colored nodes imply that
the option did not pass majority, the Blue is the
winner. The Octagon is used for the options that did
not beat the default.
Option 1 "Accept CoC, DPL can update it"
Option 2 "Accept CoC, updates via GR"
Option 3 "Further Discussion"
In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents
the votes that option x received over option y. A
more
detailed explanation of the beat matrix
may help in
understanding the table. For understanding the Condorcet method, the
Wikipedia
entry
is fairly informative.
The Beat Matrix
Option
Option 1
128
205
Option 2
141
228
Option 3
72
53
Looking at row 2, column 1, Accept CoC, updates via GR
received 141 votes over Accept CoC, DPL can update it
Looking at row 1, column 2, Accept CoC, DPL can update it
received 128 votes over Accept CoC, updates via GR.
Pair-wise defeats
Option 2 defeats Option 1 by ( 141 - 128) = 13 votes.
Option 1 defeats Option 3 by ( 205 - 72) = 133 votes.
Option 2 defeats Option 3 by ( 228 - 53) = 175 votes.
The Schwartz Set contains
Option 2 "Accept CoC, updates via GR"
The winners
Option 2 "Accept CoC, updates via GR"
Debian uses the Condorcet method for voting.
Simplistically, plain Condorcets method
can be stated like so :
Consider all possible two-way races between candidates.
The Condorcet winner, if there is one, is the one
candidate who can beat each other candidate in a two-way
race with that candidate.
The problem is that in complex elections, there may well
be a circular relationship in which A beats B, B beats C,
and C beats A. Most of the variations on Condorcet use
various means of resolving the tie. See
Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping
for details. Debian's variation is spelled out in the
constitution
specifically, A.6.
Debian Project Secretary
Back to the
Debian Project homepage
This page is also available in the following languages:
How to set
the default document language
About
Social Contract
Code of Conduct
Free Software
Legal Info
Help Debian
Getting Debian
Network install
CD/USB ISO images
Pure Blends
Debian Packages
Developers' Corner
News
Project News
Events
Documentation
Release Info
Debian Wiki
Support
Debian International
Security Information
Bug reports
Mailing Lists
The Debian Blog
Debian Micronews
Debian Planet
See our
contact page
to get in touch. Web site source code is
available
Last Modified: Sun, Sep 7 10:53:50 UTC 2014