On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:42 PM, James Keener <j...@jimkeener.com> wrote:
> 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? >> > There's an old Icelandic mythic poem "Lokasenna" which describes what I have seen happening very well. If you come to the feast to pick fights, fights is what one will get. > >> 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 >> > > At the end I see signals in the current CoC that make me hopeful. Phrases like "common interest" occur. There are some minor changes I think would help avoid problems. But they aren't big deals. The big thing is I trust our community not to exclude people based, for example, on political or cultural perspectives and thats really important. -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
