>In any case, the current status quo, which is what I described, ends in either >the >community reacting or not reacting to the alleged offence (i.e. isolating the >offensive party for example). That is A resolution, be it a good one or bad.
No, it isn't a resolution. Not reacting to a complaint is no resolution. But even if "the community" does react to the alleged offense, how is that different from mob rule? >Not only can I, I pretty much have to. No. You don't. You used the word "heinous." It has a meaning. You used it deliberately to draw attention away from the problems the CoC is meant to resolve. We don't need a CoC to deal with heinous offenses because heinous offenses are dealt with by the police. >You can't defend the CoC's text and premise on the basis that my argument is >unlikely, or extreme. I'm not defending the CoC text and premise. I'm defending the goal of establishing a CoC. >Not if they don't elevate to a criminal act. My turn to bite. What is a heinous act that is not a criminal act? ________________________________________ From: Konstantin Shegunov <kshegu...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:35:42 AM To: Martin Smith Cc: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith <martin.sm...@qt.io<mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote: >Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended >party >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text. HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately see that your 3 step CoC might not terminate. You are an imposter! That's actually amusing, but I'll bite. Formally speaking, I'm not a software engineer, never had any formal training in the field. I'm a physicist who moonlights as a programmer. In any case, the current status quo, which is what I described, ends in either the community reacting or not reacting to the alleged offence (i.e. isolating the offensive party for example). That is A resolution, be it a good one or bad. >imagine that the abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed >heinous acts against a community member. You can't immediately jump to the worst case scenario to discredit the code of conduct. In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority. Not only can I, I pretty much have to. Minor infringements can already be handled internally without the need for CoC, major ones is where it would actually matter if we have one and which one we chose. Also it's a perfectly valid logic to push an argument to the extreme to see if holds, we do it on every day basis. In math you can assume something, operate on the presumption and see if contradicts itself when pushed (reductio ad impossibilem). If I were to design a safety net for a nuclear power plant am I to just ignore the extreme or unlikely case? Surely not. You compared the CoC to a "local law" of sorts, but does the local law forgo the unlikely case that from the whole population one person would be a murderer? I shouldn't think so. You can't defend the CoC's text and premise on the basis that my argument is unlikely, or extreme. It has to able to withstand exactly those extremes! In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority. Not if they don't elevate to a criminal act. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
