Re: WIP: CoC
| От | James Keener |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: WIP: CoC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 43ECEF2E-0660-48AF-AB1C-118AAD6ED3AD@jimkeener.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: WIP: CoC ("Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: WIP: CoC
("Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us>)
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Wow. I mean actually wow.
So many things. Just so many.
You still haven't explained why core contributors need to be treated like special snowflakes. If someone acts inappropriately then they should be told so, regardless of status. Why should we protect anyone in the wrong?
Moreover, your scenario is so contrived and actually ends in a situation which supports my point, not yours.
I don't understand your point and you never clarify it. Why does how technical decisions are made affect how each person is suppose to treat each other person? We won't look past a core contributor being an ass, nor should we accept attacks because someone doesn't like technical decisions. None of this actually matters as it's all covered inside a more general CoC.
I don't want a contrived example that backs up my argument, I want you to point out at where my assumptions (everyone should be excellent to one another, as defined in a general CoC) or my chain of reasoning (core contributors are part of everyone, therefore interactions with and by them are covered under a general CoC).
"THE END" is also the most childish way to claim you're incapable of actually defending your argument and just want to declare yourself the winner. I'm sorry you don't enjoy this discussion. You're free to leave it if you wish.
Jim
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
So many things. Just so many.
You still haven't explained why core contributors need to be treated like special snowflakes. If someone acts inappropriately then they should be told so, regardless of status. Why should we protect anyone in the wrong?
Moreover, your scenario is so contrived and actually ends in a situation which supports my point, not yours.
I don't understand your point and you never clarify it. Why does how technical decisions are made affect how each person is suppose to treat each other person? We won't look past a core contributor being an ass, nor should we accept attacks because someone doesn't like technical decisions. None of this actually matters as it's all covered inside a more general CoC.
I don't want a contrived example that backs up my argument, I want you to point out at where my assumptions (everyone should be excellent to one another, as defined in a general CoC) or my chain of reasoning (core contributors are part of everyone, therefore interactions with and by them are covered under a general CoC).
"THE END" is also the most childish way to claim you're incapable of actually defending your argument and just want to declare yourself the winner. I'm sorry you don't enjoy this discussion. You're free to leave it if you wish.
Jim
On January 12, 2016 9:07:08 AM EST, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote:
If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that happened where Tom has presumably already discussed the reasons that the patch/feature/&c isn't being accepted.
If someone wanted to out someone, they would study them carefully. They would find Tom's buttons and push them.
They will show proof of Tom saying fuck you trans thing (probably something worse) and all that and it would be a bad reflection on Tom and our community.
It's because they don't have a Coc that Tom is such a jerk. They let the power get to his head.
They would have proof is my point in an email trail.
Luckily I think Tom doesn't have many visible buttons to push, but others in our community do.
Anyrate I think it's looking more like a Coc will hurt us more than do us good. This is beginning to feel too much like Highschool Lincoln-douglass debating which I never enjoyed.
I just want to get back to programming something useful.I don't think I understand your point. So I get 100 friends to come here and ask for Tom to be outed, we ask for the reason and when they don't produce a valid one, nothing happens because none of us have any power.They will ask, they'll point at a random link. Like this one -
https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200
You'll be too lazy to read it and assume they read it and they are right. Tom will be persecuted for some link everyone was too lazy to read.
News of Tom's jerkiness would spread across the internet like a virus.
The jerk think would be echoed by everyone until everyone believes it and takes it to heart. "Tom is a big jerk. How can the PostgreSQL project allow such a jerk to be running the show."
Tom will feel bad and think - "No good deed goes unpunished", he'll step down.
THE END
Thanks,
Regina
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: