2018-08-08 18:53 GMT+03:00 Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com:
This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended to an international community.
FWIW, the CoC itself is quite neutral and contains (at least in my view) no American specificities, only general principles that most developers can identify with. Also, I would note that the majority of the current committee members are *not* US-based (from what I can tell) and that there is a good gender balance, so it's hard to argue it could get more diverse than that. That, together with the history of MZMcBride should make us give credit to the committee (and question some of our own stereotypes ;))
Nevertheless, this case has shown a few issues with the way the CoC is implemented. I strongly believe secrecy and open source don't go well together and that the committee's decisions should be opened to scrutiny by the community. That implies that (at the very least) bans should be publicly logged, together with the duration of the ban, the intervention in question (if still public) and the part of the CoC that was breached. Ideally, the justification should also be public, but I realize that might not always be possible or desirable.
Another question is how will such discussions be included in the CoC or the committee's process? I don't think a blacklist of forbidden words would be a constructive or realistic solution, but such email threads should not remain without follow-up, or we risk repeating the same mistakes in the future.
Strainu