To be totally honest, a lot of the values seem like a pretty centrist attempt to crystalize ideas and power ā ideas that got us in trouble in the first place. Many of them read like symptom treating declarations that the community is not allowed to be in pain over its mismanagement.
Iām essentially for retiring this, but I have a feeling that itās just moving around words in a document ā and what I would really prefer is to refine this. I want to solve the fundamental problem that made those lines appear in that document in the first place. Stuff like the RFC process or the āflakes are unstableā problems. And all those lines that can feel a bit like saying āwe will always do the good thingā and not actually take a stance on how to get to the point of doing good thingsā¦ I want more āshow itā, and much less ātell itā.
While I disagree with @cafkafk on some of the specifics she just said, I do agree with the broader point that weāve had way too much meta-discourse on governmence, and not enough object-level discussion on what we actually want to do as a community.
Positive critique (what we do want) is harder than negative critique (what we donāt want). I would like the community to spend more time on the latter. We can send every SC to the guillotine yearly, but until we know what we actually want, weāre not gonna be any happier.
I feel like the issues we have arenāt particularly rooted in this value. Feels very backdriven from āpeople are doing things that arenāt good with this value as justificationā ā"remove this part" when I suspect the issues there are more down to the dynamics between people involved.
Purely from a pragmatic standpoint getting consensus to adjust values.md seems nigh impossible.
We may find it beneficial to first try actually practicing the values before saying that they donāt work.