I agree about the "he did it first" point and that's not what I'm bringing up here. The discussion is drifting from the main statement: the git-for-windows maintainers were biased and blocked (by *selectively* applying the CoC) people who disagreed on politically motivated changes, to which the community has clearly manifested against. > I do notice you've also been blocked from the project. A very, very disproportional action. Hiding my comment *when it was made* would be enough. People are allowed to make mistakes and defend themselves. > AFAICT the hiding of comments and the blocking of people happened more or less at the same time (from the perspective of the commenters). > Maintainers of projects aren't reading comments in real-time. The repo's crew had plenty of time and opportunity to act on bad behaviour and when they did, it was selective. If a comment goes against the CoC, it doesn't go against it *after other comments* or when the debate gets heated. I understand that the timing of the events can't be clearly demonstrated from a plain-text message but I'm very sure of what happened there. > I'm open to the notion that a maintainer is abusing their power and silencing dissent under the guise of the CoC. But I don't really see evidence of that here. Just consider that the user mlvzk wasn't blocked or banned from the project. He did not even have his comment deleted, even it suggesting some nazi-like actions (come on, icons to identify dangerous people? What about a yellow star?). And his comment wasn't hidden until some time after people were blocked. I'd be glad to get the list of users who liked his comment but it's blocked. Isn't it disproportional, considering that user A suggests an open witch hunt and user B uses mild "bad language"? > OK. Thank you for making us aware of your viewpoint. It sounds like there's no specific action you're asking to be taken, so I'll leave it at this response for now. I think it was clear that the repo's maintainers, or at least one of them, is willingly ignoring the community's manifestation using the CoC as muzzle to enforce his/their political beliefs. This is what my first message is about. There were 490 downvotes on the first issue's message and 133 "pro" manifestations. The issue should be closed in respect to the community. > I'm not sure what you're asking here. That the git-for-windows team (or member) should be reprehended for not accepting the community's decision and opinion and being selective on their bannings. Their (his) actions send a very nasty message to the community, that, basically, we don't matter in the discussion. And that it reflects on git's reputation.
