On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Michael Stone <mstone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:44:46AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> 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?
While I agree that the CoC has been cited in ways I did not have in
mind when voting for it, I have not seen as case where it has actually
been abused to an actual effect.
To me, that shows that the process seems to work, while it admittedly
could be optimized by a margin of approximately 300 emails.
Richard
--
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/>.
|
|
