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 <jim(at)jimkeener(dot)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?
>
> 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
>