On 10/10/21 16:47, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
- Overall, I think the current CoC is below the standard that has been
historically set for official contributions to Arch Linux and would be a poor reflection on the distribution if officially adopted.
- The RFC should not be adopted until an improved CoC is included.
I do recognise the arguments made to accepting the CoC as is, then making changes in the future. However, I will add one further comment based on Konstantin's reply:
Some of us have only agreed that it could potentially be improved, but not that it definitely should or needs to. Furthermore, I do not think we all agree with the direction of that potential improvement either.
This statement indicates the ability to change the CoC after acceptance of the RFC is no guarantee that we will not be stuck with the current CoC. This represents the clearest reason not to take a compromise and accept what I consider a substandard document.
I agree we should be mindful about what we accept and officially adopt but i strongly disagree the current version of the document is literally unacceptable.
We don't need to reach perfect before we can adopt anything at all in fear of not keeping up to our standards. Applying an evolutionary process to this part of our distro as well is fine, as long as we have a solid foundation. A lot of different areas of our distro that reached a top notch state and what we are known for are only this good because we "got shit done" and improve along the way. Our wiki evolved over time to one of the best (or actually the best) source for various Linux topics because pages have iteratively improved and not kept back until they were deemed irrefutably perfect. We also reached a top notch state in reproducible builds as well and today are ahead -- because we created a solid foundation and had the ability to adapt to new conditions and requirements quickly.
If we are concerned about how this may reflect on our distro, we should be a lot more concerned that we lose ourselves in details and are unable to adopt a CoC as a solid foundation mostly because of phrasing. This would frankly reflect a lot worse on our distro compared to adopting a contentwise solid document and accept future simplification proposals. Before this section may be picked out of context, I back-reference my first section here about requiring a mindful adoption: I strongly believe the current version is a good foundation that can be used to move forward without harming our reputation and standards as feared.