Benjamin, Please read my email again. I did not take a side in the debate.
I didn't say anything about the two PRs or your arguments. I didn't support your position but I didn't reject it either. Please realize that your answer expresses prejudice about my beliefs and that it paints me as a clueless person for no good reason. It attempts to force me to pick a side, and rather aggressively, while I'm not ready to do so in public. Please consider that I'm unfamiliar with the American cultural standards that underlie this entire debate and uncomfortable with participating as a non-native speaker, as the topic is too sensitive to allow for approximative vocabulary. That said, may I suggest kindly that you cool down a bit and read what others write? -- Aymeric. On 9 sept. 2014, at 21:28, Benjamin Scherrey <proteus...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions > Personal blog where I am not your demographic. > > 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. -- 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/51F85285-2D90-4B89-84D9-EACFA173A88B%40polytechnique.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
