> 1. Overreacting without reading the proposal and blog posts and making inaccurate conclusions
As was pointed out multiple times during the ensuing "discussion":
1. The proposal and blog posts were heavily biased, if not one-sided (highlighting only "pros", no "cons", pushing towards the only option being "opt-out" etc. etc.)
2. Posts in opposition to the proposal were being moderated in a heavy handed fashion through the Github hide function etc.
3. Valid answers were not being provided to those in opposition to the proposal, instead the answers were largely brushed aside with dismissive waffle.
Thus the only conclusion it was locked is because the discussion was not going in the desired direction, i.e. supportive of the proposal.
> Posts in opposition to the proposal were being moderated in a heavy handed fashion
> brushed aside with dismissive waffle
> Thus the only conclusion ...
It's hard to take your response seriously when you only offer
> heavily biased, if not one-sided
opinions.
If you want to make an argument that can convince people, it is best to not use polarizing language.
Most of the hidden comments are of very low quality or do not add to the discussion. Others are off topic. Many dissenting comments remain. So this "heavy handed moderation" you describe is not really accurate
> * Can we trust the server or Google to not track IP addresses?
Well, no. I think we all know the answer to that. Telemetry and tracking is in their culture. Their culture is embedded in advertising - why trust anything an advertising company wants to do?
1. Overreacting without reading the proposal and blog posts and making inaccurate conclusions
2. Violating the Go Community Code of Conduct (https://github.com/golang/go/discussions/58409#discussioncom...)