4 ms·
I'm curious what the implied violation was, if only for the benefit of other people thinking about CoCs. The "What We Believe" section certainly has lots of op
by Bartweiss 8y ago
I'm curious what the implied violation was, if only for the benefit of other people thinking about CoCs.
The "What We Believe" section certainly has lots of open-ended language; it's quite easy to declare any unwelcome criticism 'unconstructive', or any dissenting views 'tactless'. But the "Don't" section is quite a bit more concrete, and mostly wouldn't apply. Was the implication that "this is a fundamentally bad idea" counts as "derailing" or "unstructured critique"?
- simpss 8y agohere's what he's referencing: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597 and the resulting(check the timestamps): https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13603 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13603
- dmitriid 8y agoOnly that process never materialised.
- simpss 8y agotrue, I initially missed the final response & only noticed it now when I linked the discussions. It is a bit disappointing and follows the common "wait until it cools down & give a non-response" pattern. But it's actually more than I expected. A response like this shows that they really were in a bit of a blinder there for a sec :)