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

[Allan McRae]

On 8/10/21 9:39 pm, Konstantin Gizdov via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Firstly, you are correct that the current GitLab login requires you to
> accept the CoC. In an attempt to remedy this situation, given the
> current software constraints and the risk of being seen as condescending
> (although that is not my intention), let's try the following. I've gone
> ahead and downloaded a copy of the latest-to-date version of the CoC RFC
> and the CoC documents and attached them to this email. I'm sure you are
> aware that you should be able to prepare specific comments and then use
> `git format-patch` to sign any patch you wish applied, then submit them
> over email. The patches could later be applied with your signature to
> the git repo. All of which can be done without interacting with GitLab.
> I do not believe there are any other relevant outstanding technological
> hurdles in your way at the moment. Thus, ensuring that no one is trying
> to stifle any objections to anyone's proposal.

Thanks for providing the files. I have no need to change any of the RFC
- the RFC text would be fine if the Code of Conduct document was
suitable.  If a suitable version of the CoC was adopted, we would need
to adjust the RFC to point at that version.

Also, I had already provided suggested CoC changes in the following
merge request - it remained unfinished while I released pacman-6.0.1:

https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/service-agreements/-/merge_requests/14

Note that I am presently objecting to the current CoC, not championing a
specific alternative.  I also was sent a patch today with the verbosity
of the CoC greatly reduced, but keeping the structure mostly the same. I
can provide that to the list if you wish.  The change needed further
work but that overall approach would also be acceptable.

<snip>

> 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.

<snip>

> I'm sure you know better than most that Arch Linux comprises a
> relatively small set of people working on multiple projects each.
> Statistically, that would leave many people being the only person
> working on any one thing. I'd hate to learn that you are of the opinion
> that such work is not important. I'd assume you meant something else.

I did mean something else - the context of the reply is important. My
statement was in response to the comment that if the current person
spearheading the change stopped, then "no one will be here to pick up
this topic".  That would be a measure of its importance, but I also
suspect to be an exaggeration in an attempt to push agreement.

Allan