On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:18, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> I find this article to be potentially damaging but also potentially > valuable. The "potentially damaging" part is likely because of where I work > and what "assume good intent" means to me as a result. For me it doesn't > mean "telling people to “assume good intent” is a sign that if they come to > you with a concern, you will minimize their feelings, police their > reactions, and question their perceptions." > > What it means, for me, is don't react emotionally but rather logically. > Tell the person that an interpretation of their words/actions is very > negative. Explain why. Explain the impact that it has. Then move on. My > experience has shown that the majority of people will learn from this. It > won't be instant, but it will happen in most cases. I find the assumption > in this article that "assume good intent" means people get a free pass for > bad behavior to be worrisome. It doesn't mean that to me. Repeated and > malicious bad behavior should be dealt with. Assume good intent doesn't > mean blindly pretend that good intent exists. > > That said, I do think the article highlights a potential problem I had not > considered. That is for people who "have their feet stepped on every day" > it can be very much harder to "assume good intent", even if it really is > accidental. It will become even harder still if we allow a policy of > "assume good intent" to become the kind of loophole the author identifies. > > Lets carry on with "assume good intent" here int he ASF, but lets also be > vigilant. As the author puts it let's "create a culture that recognizes and > pushes back against the ways that marginalized people are dehumanized. > Expect people to demonstrate their good intent by treating people with > respect." We see some pretty dysfunctional behaviours flare up on a regular basis on the internal members & board lists, but we should just carry on as we are? “Fred insists this wasn’t fair, and Alicia owes him an apology” - that resonates with me with what we see. I thought it was a good article. We have a code of conduct that’s pretty good - but most violations get a free pass - usually because they’re long standing members who are assumed to have “good intent”. Niall > > ________________________________ > From: Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 3:39 AM > To: diversity@apache.org <diversity@apache.org> > Subject: good intent > > Hi, > > Run into this today, it’s probably nothing new, but ASF context wise I > think it's worth reading and considering: > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthebias.com%2F2017%2F09%2F26%2Fhow-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C225a93c055a8432781bb08d73a9223ac%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637042271645833110&sdata=iLJp4Dp2zOHUOtpIl15tl%2FSxCgopkVNwQmk6TQA0dFY%3D&reserved=0 > > Thanks, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: diversity-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: diversity-h...@apache.org > >
