On 01/22/2016 09:21 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject to it had an opportunity to comment,
yesit was inclusive.
>
> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past.
When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up
either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would
expect verifiable information.
>Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that
peoplein similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time.
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
