On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 09:17:05PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > I am objecting to this RFC being accepted, as that would mean adopting a > CoC I consider substandard to the point of being unacceptable. The > ability to update it after does not change this situation.
as far as I know the current version of CoC has been applied to other parts of the distribution for a long time. this rfc only makes this application visible and official. thus, I think that the correct option is to separate the concept of consent to the use of CoC and the text of the CoC itself. > If it is agreed that an edited CoC is needed for this RFC to be > accepted, I can prioritise finishing my suggested edit, or equally help > edit any other proposed variant. the problem is that I and, as far as I understand, other people participating in this thread see no problem with changing the text of CoC after the adoption of this RFC which just makes CoC an official part of our community, and also clearly describes how to change CoC's text. > Again, I'll note that my objection to this RFC is not tied to my > specific submission. It is tied to the current version of the CoC being > unacceptable. My edit may be considered equally unacceptable for adoption. to be honest, I absolutely cannot understand why you think CoC is unacceptable. in my opinion, the problems with the size of the text and with its depth do not deserve such a low rating. also, if it helps, I and a few other friends of mine, whose English is not so good, read the current version of CoC and did not find any problems with understanding it's text. > Allan -- Sincerely, Alexander | Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
