On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:26 AM, <git / chuckremes.com> wrote:

> Issue #12004 has been updated by Chuck Remes.
>


> I am not in favor of the adoption of a CoC.
>
> If this solved a real problem, I would consider it as would any reasonable
> person. However, no one in this thread has been able to point to any
> situations where a CoC (and specifically, *this* CoC) would have solved the
> problem. Instead they say that we can't know if there are problems because
> those marginalized people have avoided the community. Their claim is not
> falsifiable. To me that makes the claim absolutely worthless.
>

The counter-claim is also not falsifiable (which essentially is that
°»because no one has claimed that this is a problem, it isn°«t a problem°…).
I°«m a software development manager in my day job now. I have to work *very
hard* to make sure that every single one of my developers is heard because
they aren°«t all bold and outspoken. It°«s often a subtle thing, but the
effort *is* *real*.

I agree with you about *this* CoC for Ruby, because there are organizations
behind Ruby. Ruby itself should not have a CoC that applies to the repo
(such as the Contributor Covenant or the °»Code of Merit°… nonsense that some
folks are proposing in its stead), but something that is a bit broader and
written with knowledge that Matz is essentially a benevolent dictator for
this community.

-a
-- 
Austin Ziegler  halostatue / gmail.com  austin / halostatue.ca
http://www.halostatue.ca/  http://twitter.com/halostatue
(supressed text/html)
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>