Perhaps I was too broad in saying 'entirely public and transparent'. I did not mean to suggest that *reporters* should be made public.
That being said, I don't agree that a moderator post pointing out violations is a form of shaming (if that is what you meant). Additionally, it communicates the point to everyone at once, rather than addressing individuals on a case by case basis. | We should know what is a violation by reading the code of conduct. *Should*? Ok. What about when we don't? It sounds like you are working from an assumption that the CoC is infallible and completely unambiguous. I agree that is something to strive for. We must be allowed to have public discourse regarding it's interpretation. *Especially* when dealing with non-native English speakers. On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:10:57 AM UTC-5, Nate Finch wrote: > > We should know what is a violation by reading the code of conduct. Making > the process public would make it a way to shame people, and also might > discourage people from reporting for fear of reprisal. The intent is to > inform people when they have said something that others find insulting or > unwelcoming, so that they may find nicer ways to express themselves. > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:29:47 AM UTC-4, Jordan Krage wrote: >> >> At the very least, this kind of CoC 'enforcement' should be entirely >> public and transparent. How are others supposed to learn what is >> considered a violation, when violators are only contacted privately by >> email? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
