2 ms·

Which is a clause written on the CoC itself. The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. Anyone who has doubts about the CoC, must be expelled from the T

Which is a clause written on the CoC itself. The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. Anyone who has doubts about the CoC, must be expelled from the TSC, because it's written on the CoC. This ensures that the CoC can't be touched ever. A good example of catch-22. They shouldn't have approved it in the first place.

ebola1717 9y ago
> The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. That's... how laws and rules work...
- true_religion 9y ago
  Actually, no. You can follow the laws but still publicly critize them in most democratic countries.
geofft 9y ago
> They shouldn't have approved it in the first place. I agree with this argument - if the TSC does not intend to uphold the CoC, they should either not have approved it or should have made someone else the contact point (and given them meaningful enforcement power). > Anyone who has doubts about the CoC, must be expelled from the TSC, because it's written on the CoC. This ensures that the CoC can't be touched ever. I don't agree with this, and I don't understand how you conclude this. An easy way to change it is for the TSC to vote "We no longer want to have a CoC." Done. Nothing in the CoC says that it's a CoC violation to want to get rid of the CoC. (Of course, you have to express your desire to get rid of it without trolling, harassment, doxing, etc., but that doesn't really seem hard: you say "I think we should stop having a CoC.")
- curtisblaine 9y ago
  > Nothing in the CoC says that it's a CoC violation to want to get rid of the CoC Wait, they just tried to expel a guy because he was subtly criticizing the CoC on twitter.
  - geofft 9y ago
    1. If I'm understanding correctly (and maybe I'm not!), the criticism of the CoC was not seen as a CoC violation, it was seen as incompatible with the duty of enforcing the CoC. (That is, the situation would have been very different from if a project member not on the TSC were criticizing the CoC.) There were, I think, other actions from the same person that were claimed to be CoC violations, and I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether those claims are accurate. But I don't think the act of criticizing the CoC was ever even claimed to be one. 2. Even if it were, that would still only be a claim about this particular guy's approach to criticizing the CoC. 3. Even if it were a claim about all criticisms of the CoC, the vote failed. As far as I can tell, the scenario in reality is exactly the scenario you wish: someone on the TSC criticized the CoC, the TSC votes that this is totally fine. (If you are now additionally arguing that TSC members should be barred from resigning from the TSC and then critiquing the decision on their private blog once no longer affiliated from the TSC, well, that does not seem like the pro-free-speech position.)

ebola1717 9y ago

> The CoC must be respected because the CoC says so. That's... how laws and rules work...

true_religion 9y ago
Actually, no. You can follow the laws but still publicly critize them in most democratic countries.

geofft 9y ago

> They shouldn't have approved it in the first place. I agree with this argument - if the TSC does not intend to uphold the CoC, they should either not have approved it or should have made someone else the contact point (and given them meaningful enforcement power). > Anyone who has doubts about the CoC, must be expelled from the TSC, because it's written on the CoC. This ensures that the CoC can't be touched ever. I don't agree with this, and I don't understand how you conclude this. An easy way to change it is for the TSC to vote "We no longer want to have a CoC." Done. Nothing in the CoC says that it's a CoC violation to want to get rid of the CoC. (Of course, you have to express your desire to get rid of it without trolling, harassment, doxing, etc., but that doesn't really seem hard: you say "I think we should stop having a CoC.")

curtisblaine 9y ago
> Nothing in the CoC says that it's a CoC violation to want to get rid of the CoC Wait, they just tried to expel a guy because he was subtly criticizing the CoC on twitter.
- geofft 9y ago
  1. If I'm understanding correctly (and maybe I'm not!), the criticism of the CoC was not seen as a CoC violation, it was seen as incompatible with the duty of enforcing the CoC. (That is, the situation would have been very different from if a project member not on the TSC were criticizing the CoC.) There were, I think, other actions from the same person that were claimed to be CoC violations, and I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether those claims are accurate. But I don't think the act of criticizing the CoC was ever even claimed to be one. 2. Even if it were, that would still only be a claim about this particular guy's approach to criticizing the CoC. 3. Even if it were a claim about all criticisms of the CoC, the vote failed. As far as I can tell, the scenario in reality is exactly the scenario you wish: someone on the TSC criticized the CoC, the TSC votes that this is totally fine. (If you are now additionally arguing that TSC members should be barred from resigning from the TSC and then critiquing the decision on their private blog once no longer affiliated from the TSC, well, that does not seem like the pro-free-speech position.)