Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 1/21/16 10:04 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > On 21 בינו׳ 2016, at 7:36, Sascha Schumann <sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote: > . >>> We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote for a >>> duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so revival >>> isn't always allowed in open source. >> I think Derick is abusing the RFC process here clearly. The necessary action >> should be clear based on that. > Sascha, > > While personally I think it should not be allowed and be subject to the same rules as rejected > RFCs - the Voting process we have doesn't deal with revival of RFCs that were withdrawn by > their author. So I don't think Derick is abusing the process in that regard. > > The problem is that conceptually the RFC process isn't designed to handle issues like > this. Abuse may be an overkill to describe it - but it's clearly something that should not be > done. > > Zeev I do need to speak on this point. And mirror in effect the words of Andrea. Someone choosing to withdraw an RFC, for any reason (such as, but not limited to: personal health, life crisis, feeling bullied, etc.) Is not an indication that an RFC failed, in any way. So no 6-month ban should be in place for that. If that existed in fact, then multiple issues could come from that, including bullying someone to drop an RFC as an effective way of fighting one you didn't like. OR The idea of opening an RFC quickly on a topic that you actually don't like, then withdrawing it later before it goes to vote, just to stop discussion for 6 months. I agree that there isn't any current process/policy in place to handle this, and maybe, or maybe not, there should be. However, just considering a RFC 'failed' because a person had reason to back out of running it themselves, should not be the end result. Thanks, Eli -- | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc