Re: Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Kevin, On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers >> have received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making >> any of those attacks public (drawing more attention to them). > > Disclaimer: While I’ve followed this entire email thread, I’m sure I’ve missed stuff > that’s going on outside it. I was genuinely going to ask which attacks you’re referring to until > I got to that last sentence. It’s fair if you don’t want to share, but your argument was for us > to simply look at the attacks you’ve received. The vast majority of them were in public arenas. And a non-trivial number of people on this list have witnessed it. So it's not like I'm saying "blindly trust me"... > If you’re referring to anything in this email thread (which again, that’s all I can draw > from), I’d worry about creating a body with powers to punish attackers since we clearly don’t > agree on what constitutes an attack. This discussion has been contentious, sure, but it’s > concerning a very serious topic that would have far-reaching effects. I wouldn’t argue that > anything we’ve seen coming from any perspective rises to the level of an attack though. I don't think anything in this thread warrants the term "attack" or "harassment". While I strongly don't agree with the tone being used nor the tactics being used, I don't think they warrant any sort of CoC violation. > Again, I’m happy to claim ignorance here because you may be referring to things that have > gone on outside this thread. But since you don’t feel comfortable pointing to those attacks > specifically, we’ve sort of reached an impasse. > >> If you look at this 225+ reply thread, the vast >> majority of karma holding people have not responded (even many who >> frequent this list). A few (5+) of them have reached out to me >> personally to say that they are explicitly staying out of this >> discussion because of the level of aggression and tone, but would be >> willing to support a reasonable proposal (some provided meaningful >> feedback on it, some support the current revision). >> >> Think about that. People who are long standing members of this >> community and project do not feel that they can safely respond to this >> very thread. Think of the irony there. > > For what it’s worth, I’ve had 2 people reach out to me privately to say they’re really > uncomfortable with this proposal but don’t want to get involved because they're worried about > being labeled “toxic”, and I’m a brand-new contributor. A real nobody. Sure. I'm sure there are a lot more that aren't talking that are against it. But I think you proved my point here which is that people are afraid to share their opinion here. That is a strong indicator that something isn't healthy *today*. It says nothing about the potential solution, but it should act as a pretty strong heuristic that "status quo" isn't really good either. Thanks for the thoughts Anthony