On 09/06/18 17:30, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:
For example where you said "IMHO specifically because some people are trying to avoid being bound by it or protesting its existence by looking for loopholes to avoid it", which is not at all what that thread is about as has been made very clear in that thread.
I disagree that it has been made clear. I found the opposite to be true in my experience of reading that thread -- for instance the ability to exclude the code of conduct from some interactions between developers and users was cited as a desired feature, and thus a reason to want to avoid advertising the code of conduct in the repo.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into the idea of wanting to avoid the code of conduct as a proxy for not liking it?
I am genuinely at a loss how this could possibly be made any clearer. People are already explicitly stating this. Yaron in particular stated this from the start.
... This is a bad analogy. Repository owners *are* essentially the admins, and in this case get content control. The people involving themselves are more akin to global users like stewards trying to override local admin actions, and in this case they're not really supposed to have such control of content. Like with on-wiki stuff, it's not really so bad when a global user comes and does uncontroversial cleanup, but global permissions are not for the purpose of involving oneself in local controversy.
I'll let that one stand. Sounds like a good analogy except that this is exactly the sort of thing a steward might have to intervene for.
That is not what stewards do. They are not superadmins, but backups. Support. As people with more general +2 normally do in specific repositories.
Not just outsiders generally, but outsiders who have not had a fair shake in the past because the place has been unwelcoming or full of toxic interactions.
Reducing toxic interactions is an important part of that, and sometimes that means telling people who cause toxic interactions that they are not welcome because we would rather have other people who are less toxic and can bring different perspectives and representation.
-- brion
Perhaps I was too subtle the last time I hinted at this: this is toxic. What you and others are doing misrepresenting what others are saying, the general heavy-handedness, the implications that anyone against a specific aspect of implementation is against the very concept of good conduct...
Please stop.
-I