On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person. >> >> You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change >> master-master replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told >> you I don't like the wording because of it's implication of >> supporting homosexual marriage, which I believe to be a personal >> offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply held religious beliefs". >> You tell me that's not your intent and that you do not plan to >> change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in all >> correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that >> supporting gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so >> deeply offensive. I submit all our correspondences to the CoC >> committee and complain that you're purposely using language that is >> extremely offensive. >> >> What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced >> to change the wording of your proposal that no one else has >> complained about and others support? What is a fair, just outcome? >> >> >> 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. >> > > Your example is flawed because: > > Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to make the > argument that your belief is that a relationship should be between one > person and another and in this argument a man and a woman which has > literally nothing to do with the word multi or partner in a technical > context. > > Your example would carry better wait if you used master-master replication > to be man-man or woman-woman neither of which makes any sense in the > context of replication. > > Since man-man or woman-woman makes zero sense in the context of > replication it would immediately be -1 from all the -hackers of any sense > which for the most part is all of them. > > In short the fundamental outcome is that the community wouldn't let it get > that far. We have 20 years of results to show in that one. > > Doesn't that 20 years of results pretty clearly demonstrate that this community does not gain an advantage for adopting a CoC?
