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

[Morten Linderud]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 09:40:24PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 8/10/21 9:31 pm, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 07:24:58PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> >> On 8/10/21 6:01 pm, David Runge wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> The RFC does not give the option of an edited version of the Code of
> >> Conduct being adopted.  The RFC states that the Code of Conduct "is
> >> hereby officially adopted in its current form".  Hence the RFC is about
> >> adopting the *current* version of the Code of Conduct, which I object to.
> > 
> > I'm not sure why you stopped reading after that part. The next section specifies
> > that it's a living document and changes can be merged going forward.
> > 
> >     "The Code of Conduct is a living document that may change over time. Changes
> >     are applied by merge request towards the `Service Agreements repository
> >     <https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/service-agreements/>`_. Any
> >     contributions follow the repository's contribution guidelines."
> > 
> > Which should satisfy your current problem with the document as-is. We can amend
> > and fix it at a later point regardless. Your current issues with the document
> > isn't a good enough reason to block this process, and we can work it out at a
> > later point.
> 
> That would apply if I thought the current version was good enough for
> formal adoption.  However, I think the current version is unacceptable.

You still have your open Merge Request you can work on after this RFC has been
accepted. Or do you want us to pause this RFC until your rewrite is complete? Do
you have any expectations when you will have more time to work on it?

-- 
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
-------------- 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/20211008/419924f1/attachment.sig>