On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, at 3:18 PM, Ayan George wrote: > I think you intentionally misinterpret the intention of the code of conduct. Slight exaggeration used to illustrate the point to be made.
>>> intentionally >> only one person in the world, at maximum, can know that information > Not true. You can sometimes easily discern people's intent. Sometimes is neither always nor even most of the time, alone from that it's not good enough. > Yes, you could argue that only one person can every truly understand someone's intent To my knowledge that is the state of science, in case you know otherwise please send me a link. > but, as a group who's goal is to set forth a code of conduct for its members, Then I can't be a member as *my* goal isn't a CoC but to get to a better ZFS. Also, do we (as OpenZFS) *actually* have problems that warrant installing one, worded as the suggestion (including the enforcement part), epecially as it might come at the cost of others (see lkml link below) or backfire by being weaponized? > I think we can choose to set the bar for determining one's intent lower than actually seeing what's in someone else's brain. Without actually being able to see inside the mind of the other one can only speculate over the mindset in there, factoring in language barriers and/or different cultural backgrounds the success rate on this is likely at most times way below a coin toss. Thus we shouldn't set the bar low there but (instead of jumping to conclusions so we can have a nice witch burning) we *should ask*, https://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/determine-intent-destroy-misunderstanding.html describes this innovative idea. >>> provocative >> depends on how provoked someone wants to feel > This is something you have to consider if you want to build an inclusive community. What's the definition of 'inclusive community' and what's the definition of 'making spaces inclusive' (below)? That everyone coming there feels perfectly safe and unoffended and can be themselves? Because then I can (and do) argue that a CoC is a potential danger to the project (not safe as it can be weaponized) and that I am offended by the general idea of one being needed (as this implies that we have an actual problem, which I so far havn't seen evidence for). Now what? Also https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/19/234 makes IMHO good points regarding being less inclusive to some in the cause to be 'inclusive' to others. > Perhaps something you didn't think was provocative yesterday might become provocative today. Following that logic we all need to stop communicating immediately as someone, somewhen might read this and be offended. This is the internet, there was a time where someone you don't want to hear from again was simply put into the killfile and enjoying the day continued. I'm confident that similar mechanics exist in the software used to access this project (be it a mail client that can filter into trash or a greasemonky script that removes contributions from users from certain websites) so a solution exists. For the rest there exist local laws that will be enforced by the men with guns. > Fluidity and willingness to reevaluate your standards is important. Please do that. > As someone who's part of a marginalized group, Is that a Sentimental Appeal or a False Authority fallacy? In case being a member of a marginalized group helps to be more right I would like note that I'm in several. But as that dosn't make me more right... let's return to real arguments. > I recognize that "don't be an asshole" doesn't always cut it. I recognize the moment we write down morals to act on in fine detail as the moment in which we have lost. > The times that such CoCs are used against a community are marginal compared to the positive effect of making spaces inclusive. Is there any peer reviewed research that supports this conclusion or is that a hasty generalization? Am 24.04.2019 um 19:54 schrieb Matthew Ahrens: > At the end of the day, project leaders (e.g. Brian Behlendorf and myself) will need to exercise good judgment when dealing with conduct issues. Why not declare you (Matt) as benevolent dictator (or both you and Brian, as king and king), set the motto to 'be excellent to each other' and be done with it, as the plan seems to be for you two (at least for the time being) to be judge, jury and (hopefully not needed) executioner in personal union anyway. Sorry Karyn, don't know anything about you. Defining a set of rules in a setting where they can not be treated as an algorithm by the ones being subjected to them seems like a farce to me. I completely disagree with: > In addition, conduct outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to > participate within them. As the reach of this is unlimited and completely unreasonable. What someone does somewhere else is his business alone. > You may report incidents anonymously if you are uncomfortable providing your > contact information As this enables the digital equivalent of swatting. > * A public reprimand. As it's the equivalent of a pillroy, which is despicable and anyone having one is IMHO per definition on the wrong side of things and evil. Bottom line: This is the internet and killfiles exist. Local laws exist that cover personal meetings. No further things needed. Ceterum censeo: Can we return to actual productive stuff, like finally deprecating -r on zfs rollback so it (after being dropped long enough to have it removed from anything coded against the, when it comes to -r currently inconsistent, 'committed interface') can be used to specify recursive operation for rollback like *everywhere* else (except currently for rollback) in zfs, preferably within my remaining lifetime? Gregor ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T5dc11696c7b4bddb-Me15a7af6957d5494ec2c2fd1 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
