[arch-dev-public] RFC Final Comment Period: Adoption of a distribution-wide Code of Conduct

[Allan McRae]

On 8/10/21 6:01 pm, David Runge wrote:
> On 2021-10-08 09:44:56 (+1000), Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> On 7/10/21 1:41 am, Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> On 06.10.21 12:47, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>>> On 27/9/21 4:33 am, David Runge via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>>>> An RFC has now entered Final Comment Period. In 14 days,
>>>>> discussion will end and the proposal will either be accepted,
>>>>> rejected or withdrawn:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/6
>>>>>
>>>>> Please visit the above link for discussion.
>>>> Note that visiting the above link to make a comment would require
>>>> agreeing to the Terms of Service, which includes the document under
>>>> discussion.
> 
> FTR: This has been the case and *is* the case for the wiki, the forums,
> the mailing list and the IRC.

I'm fairly sure I did not have to formally agree to that document when I
joined the forum, wiki, mailing list, etc, as it was several years
before the Code of Conduct was written. At no point since then have I
been required to formally agree to this document (except currently
logging into gitlab), particularly given the distribution has not
formally adopted the CoC.  Hence this RFC.

>>>> However, the RFC process does allow discussion external to the
>>>> merge request, so people should feel free to respond elsewhere.
> 
> It does allow that, but we are now in the "Final Comment Period" [1] and
> not in the discussion period [2] anymore. Therefore it would be nice to
> not fragment discussion, by doing it on this mailing list, where only a
> subset of the staff can interact with it.

If you can set my account to be able to log into github without agreeing
to the document I disagree with, then I will move my discussion to where
you request.

I am concerned that having already established I would not agree to the
terms while logging into gitlab, that you suggest that gitlab should be
the only place to discuss these terms. I will assume you are not trying
to stifle an objection to your proposal, but rather did not consider the
impression given by your request.
> Starting a discussion about the length and form of the Code of Conduct
> *after* not interacting with the own changes to the Code of Conduct that
> would fix it, *after* not interacting with the RFC that wants to
> establish the CoC distribution-wide during its comment period and also
> *after* not interacting with the changes that were done last to the CoC
> (which in fact you gave the initial idea for and were informed about its
> progress multiple times) by Jonas and I, but instead complained about
> *after the fact*, to me, quite frankly at this point feels nothing short
> of condescending and disrespectful.

You started the RFC as I went on holiday and closed it before I was
back. It was open for 9 days.  This is why there is a two week post
discussion period built into the RFC process to ensure there is adequate
time for everyone to comment.  I would consider that suspicious timing,
but I will assume good faith here and put it down to coincidence.

The RFC does not give the option of an edited version of the Code of
Conduct being adopted.  The RFC states that the Code of Conduct "is
hereby officially adopted in its current form".  Hence the RFC is about
adopting the *current* version of the Code of Conduct, which I object to.

Additionally, accusing me of being condescending and disrespectful in
your first reply to this thread shows a complete lack of good faith in
your approach to these discussions, and breaches the Respect section of
your proposed Code of Conduct. This is also not the first time you have
responded in such a way to disagreement with your opinions. I expect you
to hold yourself to a higher standard.

> This form of communication is very ineffective and draining and I urge
> you to stop doing that.

No.  I will not stop advocating for changes to improve the distribution.
 Or equally stating objections to adopting changes that reflect poorly
on the distribution.

And I believe adopting the Code of Conduct in its current form reflects
poorly on the distribution.

Allan