Re: [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations

Hi! > taken part of). So given that track record, along with how the project > philosophy generally is, I do not see abuse being a problem, even the > sligtest. There are a lot of things that I thought our project philosophy does not admit, but turns out I have been wrong. I don't see why if we are already discussing banning people for questioning the holy RFC process, we'd need any "abuse" to have a problem. I think mere "use" of this RFC, as written - to ban people for expressing "wrong" thoughts that somebody (who?) deems "disrupting" - IMO would be abuse enough. And if it's never intended to be used, then why have it? As you yourself mentioned, we've dealt with rare disruptive individuals before it without too much problem and without dramatic speech code RFCs. Clearly, this is meant to go further than that. And that direction is scary to me. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com