I missed all this, what did rvagg do? Why are some people upset enough to try to vote him off the island, and leave when it didn't happen?
One can not even question the codes of conduct, they are written on stone and are beyond criticism and questioning...
If you really think disagreeing with someone and expressing it constitutes as limiting Free Speech, then aren't you limiting Free Speech right now?
Does not make it right when it occurs
>Stepping down from a position because you disagree with someone != "Free Speech"
Attempting to, or actually forcing someone out of a project on the basis they liked a article on the web you believe they should not have liked, then responded with "incorrect words" is in fact a Free Speech issue
>If you really think disagreeing with someone and expressing it constitutes as limiting Free Speech, then aren't you limiting Free Speech right now?
where did I say that?
But since you seem to be confused allow me to clearly state my position
1. Myles is free to say what ever he wants.
2. I am free to say what ever I want
3. I believe Codes of Conduct are an assault on freedom of speech
4. I will speak out critically against anyone supporting their use or their enforcement
@rvagg's response was to openly mock the idea of a Code of Conduct. So then not only was he potentially getting away with violating the CoC, he was publicly mocking the whole system with impunity.
"Free Speech" grants us (American Citizens) the right to say (mostly) whatever we want without fear of breaking the law. No one is accusing him of breaking the law. No one is trampling anyone's freedom of speech.
I'm an outsider to this, but it seems to me that the tl;dr was that he was basically undermining the moderation actions of the TSC and CTC.
> Do Meeting Notes or a recording of the TSC vote exist? Is it known who voted what and who abstained?
My interpretation is that it's asking, "Who's against us? Let's call them out..."
Likewise, members on the TSC likely represent constituent interests (or I would hope they do).
Election of a new member, or eviction of an existing one, is done by existing membership and there's no public voting to elect any of the members.
I see nothing wrong with having a private vote for something as sensitive as kicking someone out. It's no different than keeping jury deliberations private.
I mean, from the perspective of say, folks that feel they were harassed (hypothetically), they would want to know who they should feel comfortable expressing their concerns to in the future, and who is or is not sympathetic to those concerns. Private votes that don't align with public behavior would also be concerning, and private votes encourage deceptive acts.
For what it's worth, when Congress votes to censure, impeach, or remove, these are public votes. I don't think the jury analogy is quite apt, as the people voting were not selected in that manner. Is that fair?
I think that this is an extremely important point, given that the CoC says that the reporting path is an email alias that goes to the entire TSC.
If the CoC's reporting path were some other group, I think it'd be a very different situation. (There are of course downsides to having a separate antiharassment group that has different power in the project from the core team, and may end up disagreeing with the core team, but it would avoid this particular problem.)
If you want closed-door meetings and secret decisions, there are tons of proprietary projects and standards committees doing important and exciting work.