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

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Sun Oct 10 14:47:34 UTC 2021

I had a long reply to the Konstantin's comments, but I deleted it.  I
find the email repeatedly takes statements out of context, or states I
have made claims I clearly have not, and uses this to draw
unsubstantiated conclusions.  This makes it difficult to reply in a
manner I consider fitting for interactions in this distribution.
However, if responses to individual points are particularly wanted, I
hereby offer to provide them on request.

Instead of replying to the email I will summarise my position in a clear
concise manner, and will likely not reply further to this thread unless
directly requested to.  *Do not take the lack of further replies as

My stance on the RFC is:
 - We need a Code of Conduct (CoC), and I agree with the entire RFC
except the link to the commit with the proposed CoC.
 - I contend the proposed CoC is overly long, particularly in the
description of each of the offenses, to the point where I find it
condescending and not showing respect to the community of a technical
Linux distribution.
 - The writing in various sections of the proposed CoC is overly
complex, and the understanding of the expectations would be enhanced by
fixing this.
 - The document is also poorly organised.
 - 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.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list