3 ms·
> Disclosure: I was on the Go team at Google until earlier this month. Dealing with DeVault's bad faith arguments is one of the few things I won't miss of that
by cycomanic 4y ago
> Disclosure: I was on the Go team at Google until earlier this month. Dealing with DeVault's bad faith arguments is one of the few things I won't miss of that job.
So does or does not the problem persist? Second was or was he not banned from the commenting issue tracker. Third does the CoC require that a person gets notified by the moderator and was DeVault notified?
If the answers are yes to all those problems I wonder who is makeing bad faith arguments?
Note: I have absolutely no skin in this game, except for being a sway and gmail user.
- tptacek 4y agoThe subthread we're commenting on is about the ban, not about the proxy.
- cycomanic 4y agoThe OP specifically said: > Dealing with DeVault's bad faith arguments is one of the few things I won't miss of that job. They didn't say bad faith argument about banning, they said argument_s_. So he is not just talking about a single one. Which are the bad faith arguments? I asked if any of the things were not true, nobody said they were untrue. How can any of the arguments (I did not just talk about the proxy, I also talked about the banning) be bad faith if they are true?
- joshuamorton 4y agoThe bad faith arguments being referred to are ones made on the issuetracker, not in the article.