I accidentally didn't send this to the whole list. I'll let Chris resend his response if he'd like.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:58 PM, James Keener <j...@jimkeener.com> wrote: > I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause >> trouble are likely to get trouble. This sort of case really doesn't worry >> me. I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease >> doing so. >> >> > Are you implying that either of my RPCs are causing "trouble" for either > advancing a technical proposal, not wanting to change wording they feel is > clear and non-political, or for voicing their concerns that a proposal is > highly offensive? > > The whole point of the CoC is that people shouldn't feel like they're > causing "trouble" if they feel like they're being picked on or offended or > marginalized. That's specifically why people want them: they want to know, > or at least feel like, they'll be taken seriously if someone is > legitimately picking on them or marginalizing them. > > I complain a lot about the CoC, but I agree with Tom (I think it was) in > saying that there does need to be some written framework for how disputes > are handled by the organization. I just feel that CoC has, unfortunately, > become a politically charged term that often find themselves talking about > politically charged subjects instead of saying you should focus on > technical topics and not on the person when discussing a technical topic > and how a dispute will be handled if someone is misbehaving. I've seen them > used as weapons in real life and have watch disputes play out over the > internet, e.g. the famous push for opal to adop the Contributor Covenent by > someone not affiliated with the project and who (potentially/allegedly) > misunderstood a partial conversation they heard. ( > https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941). > > The question is: how can you (honestly) make people feel like we'll take > complaints seriously, while also not allowing for the politics that I've > seen surround recent incarnations of Codes of Conduct? > > Jim >
