In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
asymmetric: this is the main one: https://contributors.scala-lang.org/t/politics-safety-and-the-future-of-scala/5317

You may be able to ignore politics, but many of us—particularly the most vulnerable of us—cannot. […] My very life and [existence] is political. I do not have the luxury or privilege of ignoring politics. My political differences with some others in the community is that I want to live, and they want me to not exist. There is no reconciliation there.

Just wow.

tomberek: okay, so let me attempt an example to illustrate it: let's say that we have some hypothetical 'conflict' unit. a proposal might involve 3 conflicts, or 20 conflicts, and so on. but not every conflict is equal; some conflicts are tiny (disagreement about what pizza to order), some conflicts are huge (I want to live vs. you want me to not live, like in what piegames quoted above). and some conflicts are fundamental and unresolvable (different taste preference for pizza toppings) whereas other conflicts are resolvable ("oops, I misunderstood what you meant with that, let's clarify the text").

how I am reading your question is basically "after how many conflicts do we give up on this proposal?" - but that is a question that doesn't make sense to me without more nuance. 10 conflicts about pizza toppings are annoying but not a critical issue, whereas a single conflict about whether someone deserves to live could make the whole proposal unworkable. likewise, conflicts might be genuine disagreements where a compromise can be reached, or they might almost all originate from one hypothetical person who is trying to derail the discussion so that no moderation changes are made, so that they can continue to evade consequences for their behaviour going forward.

I am taking all of these factors into account in deciding whether I continue to consider RFC 98 a workable proposal, or not. I'm not looking at the absolute quantitative amount of conflicts, but at what kind of conflicts they are. are they fundamental disagreements in values or morals that make it impossible to reconcile the community? or are they just cases of miscommunication because different people from different backgrounds interpret the same words in a different way?

and so far, my observation is that there are very few deliberately disruptive people, very few irreconcilable philosophical or moral disagreements, and that most of the conflict appears to be a product of miscommunication - which is something that is resolvable with enough time and good-faith communication (which is what I've been working on for the past few days). for that reason, I consider RFC 98 still workable, and that remains my position but only as long as the 'makeup' of the conflicts remains looking like this.