Re: WIP: CoC

>> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though.
>> The community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is
>> vastly different than the community not calling Tom out
>> for being mean.
>> The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior;
>> and the community should call Tom out. (I'm sure you're
>> a great person, Tom, sorry you're the example being used
>> here.)
>
> Let me reiterate that YES it does. The reason is that this
> is a Contributor Code of Conduct, so covers whether and how
> you accept a piece of code.

No, no it's not. It's about interpersonal interactions, not technical
decisions.

> In certain gang of 10 that has not contributed anything to our
> project can argue that you took person X over person Y's
> implementation because person Y is black and you are racist.
> If everyone is equal -- how are you going to fight that?

The same way I would argue with you if you called me sexist for not
liking your ideas? I'm not understanding your point. Why is this any
different than someone calling someone else a racist? The project
backing Tom's decision has nothing to do with responding to Tom being
called a racist. Moreover if the project backs Tom's decision on a
technical basis, the attacker isn't going to get very far with relief
here. If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that
happened where Tom has presumably already discussed the reasons that the
patch/feature/&c isn't being accepted.

>> Now the whole n-or-b thing gets into obvious not helpful dialogue
>> which is not helpful. I'm sure anyone would agree that if Tom called
>> me a nigger, it's not helpful to our communication, and you should
>> therefore tell him to shut-up regardless who he is.
>
>> So then why call him more valued? It doesn't matter in this context.
>> Why even bring it up. On technical matters, someone closer to the
>> issue is often a better arbiter of the evidence, but in matters of
>> interpersonal interactions, no one should be held above another
>> person.
>
> Tom was just an example. Yes someone closer to the problem would be
> better and Tom of course would delegate. My point is people in our
> community are more important to us than strangers. Let's say you
> have 1000 people come and attack you off the street(this is how those
> SJW's work BTW and why they are so big on that line "It's your
> responsibility to oust your project maintainers"). If you consider
> their opinions equal to those who have put sweat into the project,
> they will crush you. A Coc is not only to make new-comers feel
> welcome, but to protect our long-estabilished project members from
> marauders.

I don't think I understand your point. So I get 100 friends to come here
and ask for Tom to be outed, we ask for the reason and when they don't
produce a valid one, nothing happens because none of us have any power.
When it comes to committing and governance, there _is_ a hierarchy, and
power is concentrated with a small group. The CoC isn't a place to
discuss how our development structure works. That small group of people
has no more rights against being attacked than anyone else.

Core Comitters, while extremely important to the project technically,
deserve the same respect we expect everyone to show to everyone else.
The CoC is about that respect, not settling technical disputes.

> While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the Time
> and effort of changing long understood terminology that a large
> majority of people are used to. Since it's less costly to change new
> terms, we are more likely to accept changes to newer terminology than
> changes to long established industry terminology.

I'm not sure how we're on topic anymore, but "it's costly to change our
signage, we're going to continue to keep up the Nigger- and White- Only
signs above the bathroom. I hope you understand." isn't a good argument.

Moreover, I just don't believe they're actually good terms as they're
not really descriptive unless you already know what they mean, but
that's off topic.

Jim