Oh I didn't mean to direct it to you. Inbox wouldn't let me edit the recipient list without harming my phone...
You make good points though so I am glad I did! ☺️ On Fri, Oct 28, 2016, 17:34 Kiki Sugiaman <ksugia...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I agree. The aggressive/threatening email was an unwarranted, > disproportioned response. I'm just trying to understand where the > strawmans/tangents (or what I perceive as, willing to be corrected) are > coming from. And I didn't list all. > > Surgical arguments > narratives. > > > On 29/10/16 01:31, Henrik Johansson wrote: > > The problem isn't the CoC or that the group it responded to a complaint > > but that it right away started with a very aggressive warning email. > > > > Why not talk to Aram like human being explaining the situation. This > > would have given him a chance to resolve it on his own. > > Seems like a much simpler and more dignified way of fixing it than > > escalating to an officially stamped letter. > > > > fre 28 okt. 2016 kl 15:41 skrev Kiki Sugiaman <ksugia...@gmail.com > > <mailto:ksugia...@gmail.com>>: > > > > 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 > > <mailto:golang-nuts%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
