Aymeric,
You don't believe that one should also consider how it is used? I have
already documented that the single ever documented threatened use of the
existing code of conduct was not to protect anyone from harassment but, in
fact, was used to stifle someone's thoughtful and reasoned argument and end
debate on a point. Exactly the kind of thing that I commonly see in the
rest of the world where such speech and conduct codes are applied. They
inevitably lead to this and I find that coercive and destructive. Evil in
the name of good is twice as evil.
I will also note that I have made several direct assertions about the
positive aspects and negative aspects of certain policies. The sudden
influx of people speaking in support for a speech and conduct code that
enumerates forbidden activities have all chosen not to respond to any of
these assertions with reasoned arguments or provide any assertions of their
own backed up by evidence. None. Zero. I think that speaks very much
towards the quality of their arguments and the resulting policies if their
preferences are chosen. Sadly, I also anticipated this when I replied to
Kevin's latest post asking for those who supported the speech code to
respond to my concerns directly because the usual tactic by people wishing
to impose such things is to argue around the subject rather than address
the real documented problems with it. Alex gets partial credit for at least
giving some specific support (the Ada group's recommendation) for why he
wants it but no one has bothered to address the clear and present
documented dangers of such a thing as I have argued.
Again, getting back to the subject of the two PRs, 84 is fine but 86 is
way out of line because you've then imposed a speech and conduct code on
the entire universe without any context of having anything to do with
Django. Nothing good can come of this.
-- Ben
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey <proteus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So far we have exactly one documented example and TPTB took it seriously
> right away. To me, this hardly justifies any need for an explicit
> "anti-harassment" policy.
>
> I believe the success of the code of conduct is measured by how rarely it
> is needed.
>
> If it never needs to be brought up, then it has achieved its goal.
>
> So thanks for confirming that it works well :-)
>
> --
> Aymeric.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/E4FAFFC8-DEA4-411D-9130-EA9BC74090B0%40polytechnique.org
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies <http://proteus-tech.com>
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions <http://biggestfan.net>
Personal blog where I am not your demographic
<http://notyourdemographic.com>.
This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
received this email by accident - well lucky you!!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D79ZSdh_oHBNdu8kSkv6oeS4tS3Ekgw6Ygz_Ft_xqUh%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
