On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 07:24:58PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > On 8/10/21 6:01 pm, David Runge wrote: > > Starting a discussion about the length and form of the Code of Conduct > > *after* not interacting with the own changes to the Code of Conduct that > > would fix it, *after* not interacting with the RFC that wants to > > establish the CoC distribution-wide during its comment period and also > > *after* not interacting with the changes that were done last to the CoC > > (which in fact you gave the initial idea for and were informed about its > > progress multiple times) by Jonas and I, but instead complained about > > *after the fact*, to me, quite frankly at this point feels nothing short > > of condescending and disrespectful. > > The RFC does not give the option of an edited version of the Code of > Conduct being adopted. The RFC states that the Code of Conduct "is > hereby officially adopted in its current form". Hence the RFC is about > adopting the *current* version of the Code of Conduct, which I object to.
I'm not sure why you stopped reading after that part. The next section specifies
that it's a living document and changes can be merged going forward.
"The Code of Conduct is a living document that may change over time. Changes
are applied by merge request towards the `Service Agreements repository
<https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/service-agreements/>`_. Any
contributions follow the repository's contribution guidelines."
Which should satisfy your current problem with the document as-is. We can amend
and fix it at a later point regardless. Your current issues with the document
isn't a good enough reason to block this process, and we can work it out at a
later point.
--
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
