+100 /————————————————————/ For encrypted mail use jgpfers...@protonmail.com Get a free account at ProtonMail.com Web: www.objectnets.net and www.objectnets.org
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:13, Richard O'Keefe <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are some aspects of the "Covenant" that rub me up the wrong way. > I note that the only part of it where anyone actually promises to do > (or not do) anything is the "Pledge", which rather pointedly refrains > from treating people with different political viewpoints (like gun > ownership, or like TERFs who are silent about their opinions within > the group) well. It's about supporting diversity of *being*, not > diversity of *opinion*. > > There are other codes of conduct around which are framed in less > identitarian terms. And it is rather startling to find that one > is expected to be bound by a "Covenant" which is no Covenant (that > is, an *agreement*). A code of conduct can be imposed from the > top down; a covenant requires the consent of the governed. > > I am somewhat perturbed by the term "inclusive language" because > it is a shifting standard. I have frequently heard young women > addressing each other as "guys", yet have just recently watching > someone basically saying "I know it's gender neutral now and there > is no malice in it but it's exclusionary so it's really bad." > So if you say something like "hey guys" in a message, you have just > violated this covenant, and deserve to be thrown out. Or then > again, you may not have. Who decides? In a world where an > anti-racist black hero gets labelled a white supremacist, who decides? > > Here's another case. Many mailing lists or newsgroups have a policy > "no homework answers". If you tell someone off for violating that > policy, your mailing list or newsgroup is not welcoming and inclusive. > In another mailing list I am on, there is a clear and explicit "no HTML > postings" policy, for good topic-specific reason, and people are often > (politely) told off for violating it. As I read the Covenant, that's > not allowed. > > In a mailing list where you have no idea of my age, sex, body size, > gender orientation, etc, much of the Covenant is prima facie pointless. > > The Covenant goes way too far to be a mere "be nice to each other" guide. > > I have no intention of giving offence, and I am I not going to pull out > of the mailing list, but couldn't some less creepy code be adopted? > > > > > >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 08:08, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: >> Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote >> > https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct - which >> > is quite popular and generally accepted. >> >> Based on the reaction earlier in the thread, I was expecting something >> highly opinionated and polarizing, but it seems to boil down to: be >> professional and don't make it personal. While there are some categories of >> people mentioned, it doesn't seem to make a value judgement about them, but >> merely say that no one (including from those categories) will be harassed >> inside the Pharo community. Seems pretty reasonable, unless I'm missing >> something... >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >>
