[07:33:08] <qgil>	 It makes me sad to see how far some people will go "to be right" in the Code of Conduct discussion. Having to defend GSoC as a non-discriminatory program that is good for Wikimedia is surreal.
[07:33:33] <qgil>	 Especially when arguing to people that know that perfectly well, including a regular GSoC mentor.
[07:33:40] <qgil>	 As said, surreal. And sad.
[07:39:34] <andre__>	 qgil: Some people like discussing abstract ideas. Some folks might want to find a perfect text that does not leave room for interpretation. And some people just might not like a CoC. :)
[07:40:02] <andre__>	 Don't get sad about that. See it as a sport when it comes to argumenting in discussions. :-/
[07:41:20] <qgil>	 Taking it a sport is the mainly reason why I keep replying. And I think in this case it is not about improving the CoC text, but about bringing it down using all the tools at hand.
[07:45:00] <andre__>	 That's also my impression
[07:45:53] <andre__>	 ...but then I also like trying to assume that people mean well.
[07:57:57] <qgil>	 It's the nth discussion of this kind I have with Yaron on that discussion page, so my assumptions are slowly evolving.
[08:28:49] <qgil>	 I had missed https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:How_to_get_Wikidata_code_review_done.jpg. So funny!
[09:06:21] <andre__>	 Heh. I saw it embedded on some page a few days ago.
[11:42:44] <tonythomas>	 since soc is the topic, qgil where is this argument coming up ?
[11:42:50] <tonythomas>	 did I miss something ?
[11:46:41] <tonythomas>	 ah. I get it https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft
[11:52:06] <andre__>	 You didn't miss anything rational, I'd say :P
[11:52:39] <tonythomas>	 andre__: wow. Too much words there o.0
[11:52:47] <tonythomas>	 *many
[12:01:32] <andre__>	 Meh... I miss S when I want to have another opinion when editing docs ("Do you think this is a good idea?")
[13:14:41] * Niharika misses S too :(