On 14 July 2014 14:08, Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:13:01PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > >> I've discussed this in private one-to-one conversations with several >> organization team members and everyone is uncomfortable with having >> such a policy. > > I'm uncomfortable attending a conference run by people who feel > uncomfortable with having such a policy. Such policies have proven more > effective than generic "Be friendly" policies in creating an atmosphere > of safety, and despite frequent claims that they'll result in a chilling > effect there's been no evidence of that whatsoever.
I personally have nothing against giving clear examples of things that we don't want as it may not be obvious to everyone. I however felt very unconfortable with the tone of the original suggested policy. It made me feel the same way as going to some country with very strict laws that I would be scared to violate all the time. I tend to be more unconfortable in the presence of the police than in the presence of random strangers and I have always avoided environments (including for work) that focus on punishing. I wouldn't want to do an activity like learning to drive if the first lesson before starting was about all the different ways I may hurt or kill people and how many years in prison I would get in each case. Even if I think it's a good thing to be informed about those risks. This is why I had suggested some changes to focus on the positive side, keeping the environment friendly for everyone rather than focusing on all bad things that can happen and the consequences. Having rules that can be enforced is good, that's not a reason to be aggressive. _______________________________________________ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
