| 05:39 | <Hemanth H.M> | Is someone working on Built In Modules Proposal? |
| 14:26 | <shu> | no, i don't know how we would make progress on that |
| 14:49 | <jschoi> | Could I get admin access to https://github.com/tc39/proposal-hack-pipes ? It’s archived, but I just found out that its link to the new repository is broken. I’d like to unarchive it, fix the link, then rearchive it. |
| 14:55 | <Rob Palmer> | jschoi: it is now unarchived - please do your work |
| 14:55 | <Rob Palmer> | i made you an admin - so you can do the re-archiving |
| 14:56 | <jschoi> | Thank you! |
| 19:01 | <TabAtkins> | CoC members - I sent an email about banning/timeouting someone yesterday and haven't received any response, and the person continues to derail threads and be low-key aggressive in replies. |
| 19:01 | <TabAtkins> | I was told to contact y'all for enforcement, but I'm about to just go ahead and do a ban and let y'all correct things afterward. |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | Argh, it looks like bans have to be done at the org level, and can't be done for individual repos. |
| 19:27 | <jschoi> | Is there a CoC Matrix room? |
| 19:33 | <TabAtkins> | No (and if there was, it's not listed in the CoC escalation guide anyway) |
| 19:34 | <ljharb> | i've pinged some CoC folks. |
| 19:39 | <Jory Burson> | well I don't know that I have the time to read 23,000 words of text but TabAtkins confirmed receipt of your email |
| 19:39 | <Jory Burson> | what a read! |
| 19:40 | <TabAtkins> | I can point to more hostile comments that have arrived since I sent the email, but really you can just look at any of the recent threads and look for things hidden as offtopic/abuse; you'll find him in most of them. |
| 19:42 | <Jory Burson> | Yeah I don't need to look hard to see what's going on. Considering the best way to address the immediate behavior as well as the underlying issue causing these persons to participate in this way. |
| 20:43 | <Ashley Claymore> | I am not experienced in these matters so this is not advise but only a thought. Is there a risk that banning this individual would turn them into a Martyr? And others would step up in their place? |
| 20:44 | <bakkot> | that is a thing that happens sometimes but is not a good reason to not ban people who are behaving poorly. if new people come in and also behave poorly, ban them too. |
| 20:44 | <ljharb> | yes, but i'd bet much less of a risk than failing to make it clear this kind of behavior is unacceptable |
| 20:45 | <Ashley Claymore> | Wise words. I can see the value in making it clear what is acceptable communication and what is not. |
| 20:49 | <bakkot> | yeah, and it's not just about making it clear to the people who are banned: the point of the code of conduct is to make this a place where people can trust they'll be treated well (for a certain definition thereof), or that if they are not treated well then the offending party will be asked to stop and, failing that, eventually banned. That is, we've promised - to each other and the community - that it's going to be enforced. Sometimes that enforcement risks further bad behavior, which sucks, but it's still important to keep to that commitment. |
| 20:50 | <bakkot> | (I haven't read the particular issue here and can't comment on whether enforcement is warranted in this case, to be clear; I'm just speaking generally about CoCs.) |
| 20:53 | <Jory Burson> | Ashley Claymore: We have implemented a few bans for TC39; no one has been martyred to date - generally I see that as low probability even in this case |
| 21:02 | <Ashley Claymore> | Thanks for that bit of data Jory 🙂 puts my mind to rest |
| 21:08 | <TabAtkins> | +1 to all of what Bakkot said (tho obviously I'm central to this issue and you shouldn't let me influence you). |
| 22:12 | <leobalter> | My personal experience says the bans are being effective restoring the repos as collaborative work venues. |
| 22:29 | <rbuckton> | Would it be worthwhile to add a pubic channel to discuss the various RegExp proposals (the ones I'm now drafting in an effort to split up my proposal from the last meeting, as well as RegExp set notation)? I don't want to overload the RegExp set notation repo with unrelated chatter. Having a channel for discussion wouldn't be as formal as forming a separate TG for RegExp, but would at least provide a place for the champions of the various RegExp related proposals a place to coordinate and discuss cross-cutting concerns. |
| 22:30 | <ljharb> | separate channels sounds great |