On 9/10/21 10:07 pm, Alexander Epaneshnikov wrote:
On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 09:17:05PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
I am objecting to this RFC being accepted, as that would mean adopting a CoC I consider substandard to the point of being unacceptable. The ability to update it after does not change this situation.
as far as I know the current version of CoC has been applied to other parts of the distribution for a long time. this rfc only makes this application visible and official.
I do not consider "it has been used elsewhere" a justifiable reason to officially adopt a policy document. If the document can not stand on its own merits, it should not be adopted.
thus, I think that the correct option is to separate the concept of consent to the use of CoC and the text of the CoC itself.
The RFC does not separate these. The RFC specifically states what CoC will be adopted on acceptance. The proposed CoC text is explicitly tied to the RFC. Hence my objection.
If it is agreed that an edited CoC is needed for this RFC to be accepted, I can prioritise finishing my suggested edit, or equally help edit any other proposed variant.
the problem is that I and, as far as I understand, other people participating in this thread see no problem with changing the text of CoC after the adoption of this RFC which just makes CoC an official part of our community, and also clearly describes how to change CoC's text.
As far as I can tell, no-one has disagreed that the CoC needs improved. But as you say, responses so far indicate that several team members are willing to accept a policy document even if it needs fixing. I believe the changes needed are so large that I am unwilling to accept adopting the current document.
Again, I'll note that my objection to this RFC is not tied to my specific submission. It is tied to the current version of the CoC being unacceptable. My edit may be considered equally unacceptable for adoption.
to be honest, I absolutely cannot understand why you think CoC is unacceptable. in my opinion, the problems with the size of the text and with its depth do not deserve such a low rating.
also, if it helps, I and a few other friends of mine, whose English is not so good, read the current version of CoC and did not find any problems with understanding it's text.
I am a scientist, so like to rely on actual measurements rather than anecdotes.
http://www.roadtogrammar.com/ CEFR Level: CEF Level C2 (highest category)
https://readabilityformulas.com/ Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read. Gunning Fog scored your text: difficult to read.
I'm glad your friend's English ability is higher than they (you?) think it is.