On Jan 9, 2016 2:27 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > > One problem we discuss this using two different ends. I mainly focus on > > providing tools to ensure we have a safe context. While you seem to > > ensure that we do not mistakes, do not ban innocent or apply censorship > > inadvertently. > > If you looks at creating safe context without worrying about mistakes, > then this is easy - just ban everybody who sends anything anybody > doesn't like.
A minimum effort is required for this discussion. Really. Did I ever say that? No, I did not. What I said is that these are two different points and should be discussed separately. Yes, it will be part of the RFc but talking many points at the same time is impossible. Content of the CoC, roles of the group, actions or no action defined, etc are different points which should be discussed, one after another. Early points like the toc of the CoC can be discussed with assumptions. Assumptions like 'let say we trust the group to begin with". Then we can discuss how the group is chosen. For example. This is not code or tech matters, we cannot have unit tests. > No need for process, votes, etc. Of course, that would > ruin the community, but safety would be ensured. I hope that illustrates > absurdity of looking for safety alone, without ensuring safeguards. For > the sci-fi rendering of the same theme, I recommend Watchbird by R. > Sheckley: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29579/29579-h/29579-h.htm > This is how safe context without safeguards looks like.
