> XDG comes from the GNOME and KDE crowd, meaning Red Hat/IBM, Trolltech, and maybe Canonical or a few other token companies. Notice the complete lack of real community input or control?
You're completely erasing the community involvement in KDE and GNOME. Moreover, it's grassroots that push utilities to follow the basedir-spec.
> Three, kind of a nitpick, but they adopted the Contributor Covenant CoC which is problematic for people who respect compartmentalization of social spheres. I don't care if there's a dipshit bigot on a dev team as long as he or she keeps it out of the work environment.
Again a misrepresentation. The CoC says to be tolerant of all contributors, and not doxx folks. Hardly burdensome. These are rules which nobody would ban an eyelid in a professional context.
> You're completely erasing the community involvement in KDE and GNOME. Moreover, it's grassroots that push utilities to follow the basedir-spec.
What community involvement in KDE and GNOME? The GNOME guys tend to be dismissive of anything not fitting into their grand vision. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make on the grassroots comment. If a project has a majority of paid devs on it, it's de facto controlled by a company. The users don't really have a choice or an influence in those two projects.
They also don't have a choice if a bunch of people come together to force their idea of proper standards on the greater ecosystem. It's simply toxic social behavior.
> Again a misrepresentation. The CoC says to be tolerant of all contributors, and not doxx folks. Hardly burdensome. These are rules which nobody would ban an eyelid in a professional context.
Firstly, not a misrepresentation:
> This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
Look at that little wiggle room -- when you're representing the project. When does that apply? Who decides that? What's stopping FD.o and other CC CoC consumers from declaring that all contributors represent the project at all times?
This precise verbiage has been used to cause ruckus and harass people, because there are different customs and expectations between contributors as to where the line is on when you are representing the project.
Morally speaking, a project has little justification for punishing or ousting a contributor for any conduct that occurs outside of its infrastructure or community.
I don't care what the professional context is. That's another word and concept that means different things to different people, and is better used as a bat to shame people with than to form any reasonable standards of behavior that respect personal liberties and variety of expression. "Professional" people care far more about appearances and prefer to deliver their poison in etiquette-approved containers.
How often does one see behavior or words labeled as "unprofessional", without any logical or rhetorical backing? Personally, I see it every time it's accused.
I'm interested in reading about any community-driven features or standards that XDG has collaborated with the community on in good faith. i.e. something that was added without the need for a company to sponsor or approve it.
You're completely erasing the community involvement in KDE and GNOME. Moreover, it's grassroots that push utilities to follow the basedir-spec.
> Three, kind of a nitpick, but they adopted the Contributor Covenant CoC which is problematic for people who respect compartmentalization of social spheres. I don't care if there's a dipshit bigot on a dev team as long as he or she keeps it out of the work environment.
Again a misrepresentation. The CoC says to be tolerant of all contributors, and not doxx folks. Hardly burdensome. These are rules which nobody would ban an eyelid in a professional context.