On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:36 PM, R. David Murray firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 04:10:08 +0000, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org
So let me make it clear: Brett, and the other list maintainers, you're not listening. Even if I'm a minority of one out of the whole
your words say "of course we care what you think" but your actions say "actually no, we couldn't care less". You might not have intended it that way, but nevertheless that's the way it is.
I see where the issue came in: I simply considered the discussion on the CoC already settled. As you pointed out in your second paragraph, the
Just so Steven doesn't think he's a minority of one, let me say that I too find CoCs problematic.
I did not think I would ever reply in this thread, but its 25+ messages in my inbox made me click on the CoC link and actually read it.
As a result, I am truly puzzled. The CoC just states "we're good to each other" in not so many words. The dispute over Brett not being good to others by stating that we all are reminds me of the Russell's paradox. 
I suggest that we deal with the question "Does CoC apply to core developers?" in the same manner the modern set theory deals with the Barber problem.