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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
