TC39 and corruption, abuse of power

[kiprasmel]

The way that @tabatkins handled the discussion (htttp://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/205) by effectively shutting it down, thus hurting it, preventing community members, including those of the committee, from further discussing and finding the best possible solution, is absolutely unacceptable.

The justification for it was that the rules of CoC were being violated. This is simply not true. Nobody was being mean to each other or whatever, it was a civil discussion. Like always with CoCs, their definition can be applied so broadly that it allows one to censor, silence, and do other harm, while blaming it all on someone breaking the CoC, e.g. being mean. This is absurd.

Even if anyone were to be mean to each other, how does that justify closing the whole discussion? If it's justifiable, it means that in order to shut down any discussion in control of TC39, one can get a few people, or just a few accounts, start talking sh*t to each other, and get the whole thread locked for everyone. How does this not sound completely absurd?

I argue that by shutting down the discussion, @tabatkins is abusing their power to sway the proposal. This should simply not be allowed. There is a clear conflict of interest. This is corruption.

How is this corruption? Well, the current status quo is the Hack proposal, which has advanced into Stage 2. If there is no further discussion, it will likely be the selected one. But when more discussion develops, it starts challenging the status quo. This is exactly what @tabatkins does not want, because as they've openly admitted themselves multiple times, they prefer the Hack proposal, and are biased towards it. Thus, by preventing the status quo from being challenged, they are pushing forward a proposal that they are biased towards, instead of discussing and finding the one that fits the community better as a whole.

This is clearly a conflict of interest.

Any comments?

[ken-okabe]

My comment would be
#95

There are several issues to investigate here, and I agree to your insight, I had the same feeling to have seen "closed issue", basically that's why I firstly post here. Unacceptable, so I wish to focus here.

Well, the current status quo is the Hack proposal, which has advanced into Stage 2. If there is no further discussion, it will likely be the selected one. But when more discussion develops, it starts challenging the status quo. This is exactly what @tabatkins does not want, because as they've openly admitted themselves multiple times, they prefer the Hack proposal, and are biased towards it. Thus, by preventing the status quo from being challenged, they are pushing forward a proposal that they are biased towards, instead of discussing and finding the one that fits the community better as a whole.

[lightmare]

@kiprasmel
Please, stop it. You're the abuser here. You're the one making it personal, questioning people's motives and derailing discussions. Disagreement is one thing, dismissing every contrary opinion as invalid or foul is another.

[samhh]

On a broader point, having been following and commenting a lot myself over the last day or two, I think a lot of folks who are heavily invested would benefit from a day or two away to refresh and reset. That includes you @kiprasmel - and I appreciate the effort you've put into advancing my preferred proposal.

Rapid dialogue between multiple disagreeing users across multiple threads has a habit of riling people up. We're all susceptible to it.

[ken-okabe]

@kiprasmel
Please, stop it. You're the abuser here. You're the one making it personal, questioning people's motives and derailing discussions. Disagreement is one thing, dismissing every contrary opinion as invalid or foul is another.

I didn't attend the thread, and have found an uncomfortable thread-stop there.
The fact is the informative discussion is suspended, and @tabatkins declared he will keep doing that.

But this repo has three years of arguments on this exact subject already; please review those before asking the rest of us to read twenty-three thousand words in one new thread.I will continue to close threads that do not meet the minimum guidelines from our CoC to be respectful, friendly, and patient. If necessary, further moderation action may be taken; I pray it doesn't become necessary.

I would like to ask @tabatkins himself, but to be exact, where do you feel "threads that do not meet the minimum guidelines from our CoC to be respectful, friendly, and patient"

"Three years of arguments"?
Ok fine and where on earth the "hack-style" proposal are superior to F#?
Where is the consensus?

In fact, It's not @kiprasmel who originally started this issue, but me
#95

[ken-okabe]

On a broader point, having been following and commenting a lot myself over the last day or two, I think a lot of folks who are heavily invested would benefit from a day or two away to refresh and reset. That includes you @kiprasmel - and I appreciate the effort you've put into advancing my preferred proposal.

Rapid dialogue between multiple disagreeing users across multiple threads has a habit of riling people up. We're all susceptible to it.

I don't think you provides a broader point.
The raise of heavy conversation on the topic is rather welcome after 3years, and fundamentally "cooling down" by a person who has interesting position to do so is generally recognized as Abuse of power.

Most importantly, @tabatkins claims "threads that do not meet the minimum guidelines from our CoC to be respectful, friendly, and patient". Did he do that for "a day or two away to refresh and reset"? I don't think so...
Or much more importantly, does he have right or power to let the community members be cooling down forcibly?

[ken-okabe]

I'd like to investigate the fact of consensus of Hack over F# style of pipeline-operator.
Could someone give me a pointer?

[kiprasmel]

Dear people. When I talk about this, I explicitly mention that it does not matter which proposal we are talking about.

The proposal does not matter.

What matters, is that one member of the committee can shut down the whole discussion, with invalid reasoning and motives behind it. This is a problem and will persist being a problem regardless of proposal. And this is what I want to bring attention to and get answers about.

[ken-okabe]

He also justifies his conduct claiming the reason to shut down the whole discussion:

But this repo has three years of arguments on this exact subject already; please review those before asking the rest of us to read twenty-three thousand words in one new thread

So the existence of the true consensus does matter.
Even for meta-discussion of TC39, the fact-check of base of his conduct.

[robpalme]

@kiprasmel This is a meta repository for describing how TC39 works. It's not an escalation site for personal actions so I'm closing this now.

I do appreciate that the closing of the original issue can feel like silencing. Unfortunately some debates and threads can blow up into a frenzy of long replies in which almost no one has time to read the earlier replies - so it becomes unproductive for all parties. It is absolutely appropriate for champions to intervene at this point by closing the thread. And it's even better if they can outline the ways forward as has been done here.

There's plenty of time for constructive conversation and I encourage you to continue respectfully in other venues, e.g. Matrix. If you feel there has been a Code of Conduct violation, the contact points are listed here https://tc39.es/code-of-conduct/

[ken-okabe]

Unfortunately some debates and threads can blow up into a frenzy of long replies in which almost no one has time to read the earlier replies

That is not the case here.
I observe there's no valid consensus, too.

[kiprasmel]

I will be reporting this matter to ecma-international. Don't bother covering up because I've already got everything saved.