On 8/10/21 9:31 pm, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote: > 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.
That would apply if I thought the current version was good enough for formal adoption. However, I think the current version is unacceptable. A
