Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

26
  • 38
    While I love this post came here to write this very same thing I also wonder if its totally futile. SE seems to have stopped listening to users as evident by the fact that they just put the new CoC "into production" with no community input. A far cry even from where we used to be Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 1:13
  • 16
    Although “assume good faith” is traditional, Ben Kovitz makes a good point that “presume good faith” would be more accurate. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 7:29
  • 1
    "AT some point" when did this happen? With this new edition of the CoC, or with a previous edition? Was in the 2014-10-14 version Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 12:11
  • 4
    Apparently the 2018 version. I was surprised too! Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 12:14
  • 12
    Jeff Atwood thought so. Commented Oct 16, 2019 at 19:47
  • 2
    In practice, assuming good intent means to interpret the other person's words and actions in the best possible light. Many people are unwilling to do that. Commented Nov 14, 2019 at 18:23
  • 1
    Is there anything stopping individual SE sites adopting this guideline as an individual site policy even if SE doesn't want to legislate it from above? Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 20:15
  • 2
    Yes, we desperately need assume good intent back in CoC... I thought it does not need to be explicitly written, because we can keep that thought alive, but somehow it got lost in the meantime. Commented Jan 2, 2020 at 23:11
  • 8
    Ironicaly, the CoC now says " Those who don’t follow the Code of Conduct in good faith may face repercussions".... it's turned a positive thing into a poorly veiled threat. Commented Jul 14, 2020 at 17:33
  • 4
    @Bella_Blue - And yet this is still a relevant question, as it's not found in the current iteration of the CoC. There are a couple lines that are based on the spirit of the request - I should know, I helped write them - but the main bulk of the request is still applicable to the CoC today. Commented Jun 24, 2024 at 18:42
  • 4
    I think practically - the update didn't really address this and the 'fundamental' underlying point, that that aspect of community culture was put aside and the arguments for and against it seem relevant. I can understand a status denied tag (which would be sad but technically correct) , but we're a far way from the need to remind people to trust each other least a little being 'no longer reproducible'. I'd say many of the issues brought up here explicitly and implicitly are still in play in general Commented Jun 24, 2024 at 22:58
  • 2
    @Bella_Blue Removing status tags without actually adding a resolution breaks trust in the entire process of escalating things for review in the first place. As it is right now, it looks like you just gave up and can't be bothered to review it anymore: If the feature request is declined, just use [status-declined]. Commented Jun 26, 2024 at 1:56
  • 1
    @Bella_Blue I didn't mention closing: Closure is a completely different tool (one which was almost immediately undone by the community) and should not be a replacement for proper tagging. You removed a status tag, and didn't replace it with a new status tag. That puts this "feature request" back into limbo, instead of resolving anything. If you do think "norepro" is the appropriate response, then use [status-norepro]. If you contend that the new COC did resolve this, then [status-completed]. Commented Jun 26, 2024 at 13:00
  • 2
    @goldPseudo "in the post history, the only recorded reason for your closure is "Not suitable for this site" which I doubt is what you intended at all, and comes off as incredibly dismissive for a feature request with this much support." I was unaware it only recorded that. That is frustrating and I understand what the perception was, and I appreciate you understood that was not my intent. These other tag suggestions do seem like better options. I am thinking about which is most suitable, thank you :) Commented Jun 26, 2024 at 14:06
  • 1
    In my mind, while doing "housekeeping," I came across this question that was 4 years old and thought, "We have a new CoC and this request seemed to have been addressed during the rewrite, so maybe this question has aged out?" I had a choice to I leave it, which didn't seem appropriate (bc it had gone unanswered for so long), or do I remove the tag, which also didn't quite fit. In the end, I am glad we are having this discussion because it is giving me other ideas on how to handle this request. Thank you everyone :) Commented Jun 26, 2024 at 14:15