> > That's because nobody does that. Instead, the question is whether the > > specific proposal is helpful to fix specific issues. The conversation > > goes like this: > > > > A: here's solution X! > > B: for what? > > A: for problem Y > > B: but do we have problem Y? Also, X does not seem to solve Y and also > > introduces problem Z > > A: we can solve Z easily! Also, here's proof problem Q exists. > > B: but Q is not Y. And we didn't see Y exists so far. And your > > solution to Z sounds iffy. > > A: why you keep denying problem Q exists?! > > I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion.
Fair or not, there's clearly confusion regarding what this RFC aims to achieve, and this confusion is widespread. More on that below. > Some people have > questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't. > Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't. What clearly hasn't happened is any proponent of this RFC actually answering these questions. I wouldn't assume that because most people aren't participating in this discussion (and most people aren't), all the silent voice aren't interested in getting answers to these questions. I'm sure some are waiting for these questions to be answered, like me. > Most of the constructive discussion (meaning the discussion not using > hyperbole or overloaded terms) has been not talking about if we need to do > something, but if what is proposed is good or not. And the best parts have > been help molding the proposal to be better overall. Is my email being ignored because I used the word 'judicial' to describe the current RFC, and differentiate it from a regular CoC+mediation? Is it non constructive or hyperbole in your opinion? > Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they weren't, > then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it didn't > happen? Asking for proof is not at all the same as denying it exists. Not knowing that something exists, and even finding it difficult to believe it does - is not the same as knowing that it doesn't exist / denying it. What I said is that despite numerous situations I've been involved in controversial discussions, I've never once witnessed what I would categorize as a threat of violence against me, nor did I witness one against another person. So despite having very relevant experience and a very long track record, I don't *know* it exists. I, of course, cannot rule out that it does exist, but can certainly not be sure it does - it being statements that I would categorize as threats of violence. Again, my worry here is that hyperbolic interpretation of text that perceives reasonable, perhaps ugly criticism as a threat of violence. And since we're seeing zero examples of what constitutes a threat of violence - if & when the RFC is in place, some people may find they've gotten a lot more than they bargained for. FWIW for threats of violence, I think I'd be willing to live with the measures detailed in the RFC, especially if we had some real world examples to make sure we're all on the same page. But given that it goes much further than that (including open ended things like personal attacks, insulting and even harassment, given the broad interpretation that seems to be given to this word by many on this list) - it's problematic, and is the source of the 'censorship' fears. I'm sure some could consider this letter as a personal attack of sorts. Some may consider a person saying 'That's not true' as a personal attack of sorts, since it's the equivalent of calling one a liar. And the list goes on. Last but not least, if I understood you correctly on Twitter, the goal of the RFC isn't to change the vibes on internals: Zeev: "I'm waiting to hear about how the CoC would apply to the 'poison that actively hurts the project' with real life examples." Anthony: "as I have said before, that is not a goal of the CoC. I said it because you (and Stas) said argument was fine and good." I, for one, haven't seen this mentioned explicitly on list, but more importantly - there's clearly a lot of confusion both on the list and on Twitter regarding what this RFC aims to achieve. A lot of people on Twitter pinged me (and you) saying how the way internals is discourages them to get involved (can provide references if needed), and it's very clear they believe the CoC will change that. Can you send a public message that it won't, or explain to all of us how it will? Thanks, Zeev
