That said, it's not a code of conduct if its primary function in
application is to create divides and alienate non-compliant entities.
Was its purpose ever anything but that?
On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 22:13 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 19/10/2020 21:57, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> Ar 10/19/20 3:49 PM, scríobh Daniel Pocock:
> > > You could take that up with Red Hat. It's not relevant to
> > > Fedora.
> > It is a bit like Coronavirus.
> > You can't just say "let's eliminate infections in Fedora but we
> > don't
> > have to test the Red Hat employees"
> > Achieving the excellent standards that people aim for requires a
> > consistent approach across organizations, especially when Red Hat
> > and
> > Fedora are so close.
> Taking issue with an organization that is *two* jumps away from
> (Fedora => Red Hat => FSFE) is *not* the same as taking issue with
> organization that is *one* jump away and directly related (Fedora
> => Red
> Hat.) If you have concerns about Red Hat's involvement with FSFE,
> Red Hat is the appropriate organization to address.
> Your rationale would apply if FSFE was not two hops away. In the
> way, to continue your analogy - under pandemic guidance in a number
> regions and countries, if you were in *direct* contact with an
> individual (*one* hop away), you must quarantine, but you do not
> have to
> quarantine if you were in contact with an individual who was in
> contact with an infected individual (*two* hops away.) That is how
> contact tracing works.
My metaphor was valid but a technical analysis doesn't feel helpful.
When it comes to leadership, people look at the big picture.
For example, if your doctor tells you to stop smoking and then you
him smoking outside the pub, it undermines what he told you. He
just say "I'm at the pub so its off topic now"
council-discuss mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct: