Code of conduct violation: closing issues raising concerns

[jfinkhaeuser]

I raised how the proposal here is deeply unethical because it is discriminatory in #112. @yoavweiss promptly closed it.

Note that this is a violation of the Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, as linked to in the CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md document.

[scammo]

I would recommend @yoavweiss to keep to his own words

Use professional language and be kind

src https://blog.yoav.ws/posts/web_platform_change_you_do_not_like/

And rethink if it is kind in any way to just close an issue felt be a member of the community.
I propose the reopening of the unkind closes issues.

[rubyFeedback]

I think the larger issue here is that this will be seen as Google trying to wrestle away control from The People, through market dominance (e. g. chromium code base as "empowering the modern world wide web"). While it may be understandable from Google's point of view (gain more revenue), it kind of goes against Google's original vision.

Closing discussions won't resolve the issue at hand. Google should not try to control browsers of The People (which DRM-remote proxy control ultimately is about) - that is the primary problem. See also ublock origin's author initial rebuttal and now Google kind of validated the concerns he raised a few years ago about "Manifesto" being leveraged as a control-tool by Google (in this context to force ads onto The People).

[yoavweiss]

I closed #112 as I said in #28 as it seems like spam, as a specification cannot perform code of conduct violations.

I'm happy to keep this one open if you can point me to a section in the Code of Conduct that considers closing spammy issues as an unacceptable behavior.