(Sorry to break the thread, but I wasn't Cc:d this message) Russ Allbery wrote: > So, we should look to our LGBTQ project members to decide what Debian should > do for Pride, to our Hispanic members to decide what Debian should do for > Hispanic Heritage Month, and so forth, since they're the experts on what they > would find the most meaningful within the Debian context.
A devil's advocate question/intentionally extreme example: if there were any Nazi project members, should we leave up to them to announce how Debian supports Nazi Month? By putting a swastika-shaped swirl on the Debian home page? Clearly, there must be a prior assessment that any particular group's values are aligned with Debian's values. And I don't think that this is, or should be, within the bounds of the Publicity Team delegation. Now, in this particular case, I'd agree that the assessment was made in the discussion that led to the Diversity Statement being approved. But it seems to me that the Diversity Statement was intentionally worded in a "least common denominator" way -- Debian welcomes minority people, but doesn't necessarily support the initiatives of a particular minority group. An example that is probably more to the point: Debian certainly welcomes Israeli people, but if publicity were to issue a statement that Debian supports a Zionist initiative, I'm sure that many would object. (There is of course a difference between being Israeli and being a Zionist. I'd argue that it is the exact same difference that there is between being LGBTQ+ and being an LGBTQ+ activist.) On the other hand, nobody but me has spoken openly to say that it was a mistake to issue that statement. So I'm taking that as meaning that there is indeed a project-wide consensus that it was ok. Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. Gerardo
