[arch-dev-public] RFC Final Comment Period: Adoption of a distribution-wide Code of Conduct

David Runge dave at sleepmap.de
Fri Oct 8 08:01:54 UTC 2021

On 2021-10-08 09:44:56 (+1000), Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 7/10/21 1:41 am, Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On 06.10.21 12:47, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> >> On 27/9/21 4:33 am, David Runge via arch-dev-public wrote:
> >>> An RFC has now entered Final Comment Period. In 14 days,
> >>> discussion will end and the proposal will either be accepted,
> >>> rejected or withdrawn:
> >>>
> >>> https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/6
> >>>
> >>> Please visit the above link for discussion.
> >> Note that visiting the above link to make a comment would require
> >> agreeing to the Terms of Service, which includes the document under
> >> discussion.

FTR: This has been the case and *is* the case for the wiki, the forums,
the mailing list and the IRC.

> >> However, the RFC process does allow discussion external to the
> >> merge request, so people should feel free to respond elsewhere.

It does allow that, but we are now in the "Final Comment Period" [1] and
not in the discussion period [2] anymore. Therefore it would be nice to
not fragment discussion, by doing it on this mailing list, where only a
subset of the staff can interact with it.

> >> I do not think Arch should formally adopt *this* code of conduct.

That is your right and we may disagree on that.

> > You appear to generally be agreeing to the overall do's and don'ts
> > (as your MR's [0] overall points are about the same). I therefore
> > would like to implore you to roll with this version for now and then
> > improve upon it as a direct follow up.

I support what Sven wrote.

Please improve upon your existing merge request for the Code of Conduct
[4]. It has been open for two months, with no further work done on it,
although there have been questions raised.

I generally don't like bringing up any "could have"'s and "should
have"'s; however, your MR precedes the RFC and could have been the
"current version".

Starting a discussion about the length and form of the Code of Conduct
*after* not interacting with the own changes to the Code of Conduct that
would fix it, *after* not interacting with the RFC that wants to
establish the CoC distribution-wide during its comment period and also
*after* not interacting with the changes that were done last to the CoC
(which in fact you gave the initial idea for and were informed about its
progress multiple times) by Jonas and I, but instead complained about
*after the fact*, to me, quite frankly at this point feels nothing short
of condescending and disrespectful.

This form of communication is very ineffective and draining and I urge
you to stop doing that.


[1] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/blob/9bfa7561a500a2d4e527b376bf6e2929276a9315/README.rst#L190-200
[2] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/blob/9bfa7561a500a2d4e527b376bf6e2929276a9315/README.rst#L151-156
[3] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/service-agreements
[4] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/service-agreements/-/merge_requests/14

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20211008/aa115f2d/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list