On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 06/05/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.
>>
>> You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change
>> master-master replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told
>> you I don't like the wording because of it's implication of
>> supporting homosexual marriage, which I believe to be a personal
>> offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply held religious beliefs".
>> You tell me that's not your intent and that you do not plan to
>> change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in all
>> correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that
>> supporting gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so
>> deeply offensive. I submit all our correspondences to the CoC
>> committee and complain that you're purposely using language that is
>> extremely offensive.
>>
>> What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced
>> to change the wording of your proposal that no one else has
>> complained about and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?
>>
>>
>> I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause
>> trouble are likely to get trouble. This sort of case really doesn't worry
>> me. I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease
>> doing so.
>>
>
> Your example is flawed because:
>
> Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to make the
> argument that your belief is that a relationship should be between one
> person and another and in this argument a man and a woman which has
> literally nothing to do with the word multi or partner in a technical
> context.
>
> Your example would carry better wait if you used master-master replication
> to be man-man or woman-woman neither of which makes any sense in the
> context of replication.
>
> Since man-man or woman-woman makes zero sense in the context of
> replication it would immediately be -1 from all the -hackers of any sense
> which for the most part is all of them.
>
> In short the fundamental outcome is that the community wouldn't let it get
> that far. We have 20 years of results to show in that one.
>
>
Doesn't that 20 years of results pretty clearly demonstrate that this
community does not gain an advantage for adopting a CoC?