On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:44:46AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:26:43 -0400, Michael Stone <mstone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We'll have to see what happens. As I wrote in a previous message, if the
CoC is interpreted as narrowly scoped and primarily addressing hostile
(as opposed to heated) interactions, trolling, and flamewars (as it has
been) then all is well. If the CoC becomes a sociological purity test, yeah,
there's trouble ahead. That doesn't seem to be the prevailing view,
though.
I seee that differently. The few cases where I have seen the CoC
referenced were to silence voices that didn't fit some peoples'
opinions. All other cases (mailing list bans etc) did work as they
were before we adopted the CoC.
Well, in this case it seems to have worked as desired (aside from all
the sound and fury): no action was taken and decision makers determined
that there wasn't a CoC violation. Some people argued otherwise, but
until the CoC actually punishes valid discourse rather than being
idly invoked I see this as just part of the background noise. Are there
specific instances of behavior you think was unjustly sanctioned (not
rhetorically bludgeoned) as a CoC violation?
Mike Stone
--
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.
|
|
