Anthony, > On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Keith, > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey <ke...@caseysoftware.com > <mailto:ke...@caseysoftware.com>> wrote: >> >> - If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a breach >> of the Code of Conduct? > > I think a strong argument could be made for that. Either way, I don't > think it's the level of comment or discussion we want to encourage, so > whether or not it's a "violation", it's definitely something that's > bad. > >> - If not, why not? >> - If so, what would the consequences be for Phil? > > Depends on the precise version we adopt. I think having someone step > in and say "Phil, cut it out" would be enough. Though if he continues > to do it, then we may want to escalate further. > > In general, I think the fact that we tolerate that sort of behavior is > insane. The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it > didn't happen on list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow. We > should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We should commit ourselves > to treating each other fairly and with respect, even if we disagree > with that person.
Let me make sure to say I appreciate you honestly answering the questions posed here. And I agree that we should each hold ourselves to a standard of respect and professional conduct. But is that sort of regulation of behavior outside a software project the business of that project? Further, doesn’t your answer reveal just how blurry the goals of this proposal have become? Is the point to provide specific relief for someone being attacked or to enforce general regulation of behavior? The latter is what’s got so many of us up in arms. So if the point of this proposal isn’t to regulate people’s behavior, why does the subject of behavior that isn’t good but wouldn’t constitute an action under the CoC keep coming up? Kevin Smith Hearsay Interactive <http://gohearsay.com/>
