On 9/10/21 7:17 pm, Konstantin Gizdov via arch-dev-public wrote:
Would it suffice if the RFC was changed to point at a specific branch, let's say "current" and then whatever CoC is later located at the top of that branch would be the one the RFC is pointing to, hence enforced?
No. That would make little difference, because as soon as the RFC is accepted, the version of the CoC I find to be of an unacceptable standard would be adopted.
If the RFC was changed to "Arch will adopt a CoC to be determined at a later date", with details of how the final CoC would be decided, that would be acceptable (though rather pointless I think). Or if the CoC was improved before accepting the current RFC, that would also be acceptable.
However, your line of reasoning above looks somewhat unfair to everyone else. Yes, there are many if's and would've-been's, but we are here and we are discussing the adoption of a distribution-wide CoC. It could later be updated and improved as needed and that is not in the debate. But the act of adopting a CoC is separate and that is at stake. Otherwise, your attempt at blocking its adoption because you don't like the CoC, even though it is mostly in force in several places already, looks like filibustering this specific RFC.
The code of conduct can be updated later. But I consider it unacceptable now.
Adopting substandard policy for the sake of adopting policy swiftly is not a consideration I am willing to entertain. I do not want Arch to adopt a substandard policy document, hence my objection.
To me, this completely resolves the situation by arriving at the same outcome that you desire but perhaps not in the chronological order you intend. I do feel that the chronological order is of little importance to the end goal of having a distribution-wide CoC.
That assumes I consider the "current" CoC as acceptable for distribution wide adoption. I find the current version unacceptable, and thus the chronological order does matter.
No, it does not assume that at all. In fact, it specifically excluded your agreement with the CoC itself at the moment. It only included the possibility of updating it afterwards.
Again, if the RFC is accepted, Arch adopts the CoC at the defined commit. I do not think that version should be adopted because it is substandard. Just because you can improve something later, does not make it acceptable now.
You don't release a prototype with many issues just because you want to release something with the hope it may get improved in the future. You wait until the prototype is of an acceptable standard for release.
I want to adopt a distribution wide Code of Conduct, but am objecting to moving forward with one I consider unacceptable.
That changes nothing. As already said, we do not have infinite supply of people to supplement someone deliberately exhausting them. And I don't think we should be suggesting to everyone that anyone is allowed to simply go through as many people as they like just to get their way. Each of us is here because we are willing to do this. That is a precious resource and should not be handled so carelessly, I would think.
I am not deliberately exhausting a person. My comments have been purely about the RFC and would be the same regardless of who proposed it. I am objecting to a change that I consider of an unacceptably low standard. As I would for any change I felt was of a similar standard.
I also expect my work to be held to a similar standard, and it was in a previous RFC (that RFC was withdrawn until it could be reworked into an acceptable form).
If holding work on Arch Linux to an acceptable standard is now considered detrimental, the distribution has far greater issues.