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

[Konstantin Gizdov]

On 10/10/2021 17:47, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> 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
> agreement.*
>
>
> 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.
You were given the option to amend this link and you blatantly refused
it. *mark*
>  - 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.
That is your opinion and we welcome it. However, part of the respect a
lot of our users and staff deserve is a document to lean against to
protect them and allow them to work more effectively.
>  - The writing in various sections of the proposed CoC is overly
> complex, and the understanding of the expectations would be enhanced by
> fixing this.
It is complex to a 12-grade or 1st year undergraduate level as
previously discussed. This is fine, given above you talk about a
"community of a technical Linux distribution". We, as a distribution,
advertise on most our welcoming pages exactly the expected capabilities
of an Arch Linux user. Those expectation are quite high: "The
distribution is intended to fill the needs of those contributing to it,
rather than trying to appeal to as many users as possible. It is
targeted at the proficient GNU/Linux user, or anyone with a
do-it-yourself attitude who is willing to read the documentation, and
solve their own problems." [1]
>  - The document is also poorly organised.
That's the first I hear about it.
>  - 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.
I think a poorer reflection on the official image of Arch Linux is not
having an official CoC of any kind. And when it comes to CoC standards
in Arch Linux, we currently have none. We are attempting to correct this.
>  - The RFC should not be adopted until an improved CoC is included.
I believe it has been made clear that most of us do not agree with that
point. And you've also refused to amend the link as discussed. (Refer to
*mark*)
> 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.

Nothing is guaranteed, such is life (c'est la vie). There is no
guarantee that a fringe asteroid won't destroy the Earth 5 minute from
now. But blank statements like that tell us nothing about the likelihood
of such an event of actually happening.

I think we've all made it clear that the CoC will be looked at again and
again. The CoC is specified explicitly as a fluid document that will
continue to improve and adjust for the better. This is everyone's
intention. This has been pointed out several times. I'd say the
likelihood of improving the CoC in the future is completely reasonable.
Furthermore, I believe you are quite invested in that too. So I am not
worried that it will get done.

> Allan

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin


[1] - https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux#User_centrality
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20211011/3bfad903/attachment.sig>