> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Karl Wagner <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 3 Feb 2017, at 02:55, Ted kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Personally I think that's an absurd reason not to move to a forum. What is >>> your complaint? That it's _too_ inclusive? That others only have trivial >>> things to say? Frankly, every way I try to interpret your comment makes it >>> come off as snobbery. >> >> Hi Karl, >> >> I appreciate your candor here, but let's avoid making these comments sound >> personal. This is a thread prompting polarized opinions, and most of it has >> been civil and productive. Let's keep it that way. I do respect that you >> are anxious to see progress on the resolution of the topic, but these same >> points could be made in a less antagonistic way. >> >> I encourage all of you to re-read this part of the Code of Conduction on >> Swift.org: >> >>> Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: >>> >>> The use of sexualized language or imagery >>> Personal attacks >>> Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments >>> Public or private harassment >>> Publishing other’s private information, such as physical or electronic >>> addresses, without explicit permission >>> Other unethical or unprofessional conduct >>> Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or >>> reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions >>> that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or >>> permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem >>> inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. >>> >> Thank you, >> Ted >> > > As I explained to Erica, it isn’t meant to be read personally. What I said is > that the community should be as inclusive as possible and that prejudicing > certain opinions as “trivial” conceptually runs against that.
I appreciate that perspective — and I personally agree with that point. My cautionary statement — which was also directed at others on the thread — was to ensure that the thread remains amicable, and that our choice of our words match our intentions as the arguments become potentially polarized. > > That’s also my reply to the opinion others have shared that subscribing and > publishing your email address is a kind of “good pain” to filter out the > weak. Take the String model for example - isn’t it possible that this one > particular discussion is critical to my business, and that I don’t really > care about “for-else syntax” or “Annotation of Warnings/Errors” or “Compound > Names for Enum Cases”? I don’t see the logic which says that if I care very > much about one aspect of the language, I must care equally about everything > else that ever changes with it. I agree with this point, and I'll be honest that I am not concerned about the forums being flooded with noise just because we removed friction for more people to participate. The swift-evolution participants have established a timbre for its discussions already that I don't see fundamentally changing if we move to a forum. > > I don’t understand why some feel it is so important to discourage ad-hoc > contributions. Open-source lives off ad-hoc. For me, removing some of the friction for participation is one of the most appealing aspects of a forum.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
