I'm with you on pushing back. It keeps those in controlling positions
from being too self-convenient in exercising said control.
However, it is only effective when the person doing that is reasoned and
does not resort to tangents, strawmans, and overreaction.
- Why bring generics into this? We know that we don't have it because we
can't come up with one (yet) that satisfies the competing constraints of
the core team, and not because nobody in the community is capable of
implementing _any_ kind of generics (which anyone is free to write).
- When has the CoC been enforced to curtail ideas/programs that some
didn't like?
On 28/10/16 22:33, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
On 10/27/2016 02:29 PM, Jordan Krage wrote:
At the very least, this kind of CoC 'enforcement' should be entirely
public and transparent. How are others supposed to learn what is
considered a violation, when violators are only contacted privately by
email?
The point of a CoC is to police people's thoughts and suppress those
thoughts when those thoughts are disapproved of by people who act as
authorities for said CoC. So, if they do not like your ideas / programs
/ leanings, it doesn't matter whether you /actually/ are toxic, the
self-appointed enforcers will still accuse you of being toxic, and
banish you anyway.
This is how thought control is implemented nowadays.
It's high time people realized this. And high time good people started
pushing back.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
