Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 2014-09-04 07:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Sep 04 2014, Christian Kastner wrote: On 2014-09-04 01:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. This thread is not about whether we care about people being offensive (which, btw, is terribly subjective). This thread is about whether the CoC should be used to enforce people *not* being offensive. And that is a very slippery slope with no bottom in sight. Then we should strip language out of the CoC about being respectful to people and making attendees feel welcome, to avoid giving a false impression that those things are actually important and shall be enforced. This hyperbole is not productive; neither is the hyperbole on the other side of this discussion (mostly when this thread started). Err. It is not meant to be hyperbole. But nice try being dismissive. Kudos. What? Steve made an observation about the nature of this discussion and then pointed out that there is a risk associated with some of the possible conclusions. You could have simply argued that to you, considering the slippery slope was a risk worth taking. I would have shared your opinion. But instead, you went ahead with an inflammatory tone, even expressly suggesting that being respectful was generally unimportant. That was entirely unproductive. There is an obvious disagreement as to what is respectable behavior and what not. Steve was explicit about this (which, btw, is terribly subjective). It would have been much more helpful if you had argued your point here instead of insinuating others do not care about respect. The CoC talks about: *) All attendees are expected to treat all people and facilities with respect and help create a welcoming environment. I strongly believe that CoCs are a good thing, but they have to be applied within reason. If creating a welcoming environment means that I am not allowed to criticize anyone, or voice my (perhaps unpopular) opinion when *I am expressly asked* for it, then we are far away from being reasonable, and we are better off without CoCs. *) We ask all our members, speakers, volunteers, attendees and guests to adopt these principles. *) Sometimes this means we need to work harder to ensure we're creating an environment of trust and respect where all who come to participate feel comfortable and included. *) Respect yourself, and respect others. Be courteous to those around you. *) We ask everyone to be aware that we will not tolerate intimidation, harassment, or any abusive, discriminatory or derogatory behavior by anyone at any Debian event or in related online media. If we are not going to enforce these principles, for they are slippery slopes, we should indeed take them out of the CoC, so as to not misrepresent the nature of the experience people might have. Your conclusion that a body of unenforceable rules is entirely insignificant is wrong; there is a symbolic value that can be significant (think non-binding resolution). Regardless, instead of being upset about others merely being cautionary about enforcement, I believe it would be far more productive to this thread if you would simply elaborate when and how you would see an enforcement as appropriate. It might make a difference to people as to what kind of CoC exosts (some scince fiction authors have stated on blogs that they shall not attent conferences without a CoC, so it is not unforseeable that people might make decisions based on the CoC. We should not have things in the CoC we have no intention of enforcing, slippery slope or otherwise.) I would argue that in some cases, this is a consequence of the symbolic effect of the CoCs and not a fear of the actual enforcement. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540811ab.20...@kvr.at
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
I have tried not to reply to this, but there's some bits in here I don't think should go unchallenged, but I'll stick to the major points rather than replying to each comment. On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:15:33AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: I'm offended at the use of the CoC as a political hammer. As are many. Emailing lists off of debian infrastructure have been created and those who enjoy certain ... freedoms of expression ... have migrated, at least partly. That's fine. Those who do not share the project's values about what is or is not acceptable behaviour are free to set up their own lists, just as Debian is free to withdraw a platform to host their views. On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: On September 3, 2014 12:52:44 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be open to that. While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior. One woman's opinion is another mans offensive speech. I'm sorry, but why did you have to bring gender into this? That's not relevant to the discussion. This is the fundamental problem, not with the COC per se, but with the doors it opens up, and why I believe so many spoke and voted against it. By a vote of 228 against 53, this passed. I believe that to be a strong endorsement of the CoC. No matter how well or poorly he put his opinion, some people were going to have a case of butt hurt over it. Avoiding offence is a great goal, but sometimes (and I think this is one of those times), it isn't possible to avoid it without overly restraining free expression. In cases where free expression and avoiding offence are conflicting, free expression has to win out. Sad! Now you're already talking about valid restraining of free expression. No, it's absolutely not. It's a fallacy that one forum's rules on what is acceptable is in any way a restriction of free expression. Free expression does /not/ mean you have a right to express any view in our forum. You are completely at liberty to do so in your own space, and I beleive that the conflation of these two concepts does a great deal of harm to the efforts to produce a civil discussion. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
- Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: At least in the United States, people who use the term political correctness in all seriousness as something they dislike and think is bad are generally people with whom you would not want to share a project and people who you would be best off avoiding. This viewpoint is correlated with racism, sexism, and other really anti-social behavior. Its most vocal public proponents, in the US political arena, are people who feel the major problem facing society is not that bigotry is tolerated in the public sphere but that other people dare to call them on their bigotry and imply it's unacceptable. Expect to see, for example, the KKK ranting about political correctness. I don't think this is true. If you believe Wikipedia: The term politically correct was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance. -- Uncommon Differences, The Lion and the Unicorn Journal As with many politically charged terms in the US, the phrase has been warped by both conservatives and liberals to suit their purposes. American politics is especially effective at warping meanings so I suppose your associating the term with the KKK is an easy mistake. It is interesting to analyze the original critical intent of the phrase when it is framed in the Debian context. We aren't trying to feed and clothe people so compassion is probably not the focus of Debian as a political program. I would guess, if anything, it is honesty and liberty. The intent of the Social Contract, as I understood it in my mind, was for us to prevent our computer systems from being controlled by some entity that had its own agenda. The Operating System is an instrument created by us to amplify the potential of our minds and our mutual contract with each other is to ensure that the instrument is unbiased and unfettered by external controls. The policy compliance to the point of overriding compassion in the case of Debian would seem to be policy compliance to the point of overriding honesty and liberty. I have complained about the CoC from its inception because it frightens me. However, I can see that mailing lists full of endless and repetitive debate will exhaust a rational person's desire to participate. We must have some rules to maintain decorum. What we cannot allow is for our sense of etiquette or manners to prevent us from being honest about the character of the ideas being discussed. If the CoC closes the door to rational criticism then it strikes at the heart of our effort. I'm saying it *does* do that but I am saying that we can't ever allow it to. One observation I will make is that politically correct behavior is something I associate with corporate environments. I have done business in many large organizations and I know how to adopt a professional demeanor. I know enough to keep my mouth shut when the person who holds the purse strings says something silly. I also know how to get things done in those environments and still get software built. What I do dearly hope is that we are not trying to turn Debian into *that* environment. If this safe and welcoming place that we are trying to build ends up with the flavor of a corporate campus then, well, I suppose we will have come full circle. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5635192.12681409842647228.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Thursday, September 04, 2014 09:57:27 Ean Schuessler wrote: - Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: At least in the United States, people who use the term political correctness in all seriousness as something they dislike and think is bad are generally people with whom you would not want to share a project and people who you would be best off avoiding. This viewpoint is correlated with racism, sexism, and other really anti-social behavior. Its most vocal public proponents, in the US political arena, are people who feel the major problem facing society is not that bigotry is tolerated in the public sphere but that other people dare to call them on their bigotry and imply it's unacceptable. Expect to see, for example, the KKK ranting about political correctness. I don't think this is true. If you believe Wikipedia: The term politically correct was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance. -- Uncommon Differences, The Lion and the Unicorn Journal As with many politically charged terms in the US, the phrase has been warped by both conservatives and liberals to suit their purposes. American politics is especially effective at warping meanings so I suppose your associating the term with the KKK is an easy mistake. It is interesting to analyze the original critical intent of the phrase when it is framed in the Debian context. We aren't trying to feed and clothe people so compassion is probably not the focus of Debian as a political program. I would guess, if anything, it is honesty and liberty. The intent of the Social Contract, as I understood it in my mind, was for us to prevent our computer systems from being controlled by some entity that had its own agenda. The Operating System is an instrument created by us to amplify the potential of our minds and our mutual contract with each other is to ensure that the instrument is unbiased and unfettered by external controls. The policy compliance to the point of overriding compassion in the case of Debian would seem to be policy compliance to the point of overriding honesty and liberty. I have complained about the CoC from its inception because it frightens me. However, I can see that mailing lists full of endless and repetitive debate will exhaust a rational person's desire to participate. We must have some rules to maintain decorum. What we cannot allow is for our sense of etiquette or manners to prevent us from being honest about the character of the ideas being discussed. If the CoC closes the door to rational criticism then it strikes at the heart of our effort. I'm saying it *does* do that but I am saying that we can't ever allow it to. One observation I will make is that politically correct behavior is something I associate with corporate environments. I have done business in many large organizations and I know how to adopt a professional demeanor. I know enough to keep my mouth shut when the person who holds the purse strings says something silly. I also know how to get things done in those environments and still get software built. What I do dearly hope is that we are not trying to turn Debian into *that* environment. If this safe and welcoming place that we are trying to build ends up with the flavor of a corporate campus then, well, I suppose we will have come full circle. I agree. I find it used generally as to mean any case where expression is being over controlled. As it happens, many people who feel their expression is over controlled fit Russ' description, but it's use in my experience much more generally than that. I voted for the CoC, but now I wonder if I was right to do so. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1547474.kuEBJNh8ht@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Neil Gaiman writes: I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday which included the phrase `In these days of political correctness...' talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, `That's not actually anything to do with `political correctness'. That's just treating other people with respect.' This a fairly useful view of political correctness, and I approve of it generally while also firmly believing that not all opinions are worthy of respect. Elsewhere in the thread it was mentioned that organizations like the KKK rant about political correctness to shield and justify their own prejudices and hate speech - in the strictest sense, Gaiman's adopted view of political correctness would also require treating members of the KKK with respect, as the view as presented seems to be a fairly open-minded stance. Perhaps I'm a hopeless primitive, but I don't see value in tolerating intolerable things. While the KKK makes an extreme example, everything exists on a continuum, and there will be things I don't wish to tolerate or support - and I recognize in advance that other folks will disagree with my criteria. A relevant and pragmatic approach comes from a recent talk given by Linus Torvalds at DebConf 2014[1] wherein he said, People are different, and some people take offense, and some people give offense, and we all have to live together. But, the living together is not by finding some lowest common demoninator. In general I support the notion of a code of conduct. I've personally witnessed the desperate need for a Code of Conduct in the various IRC support channels that service Debian users, wherein I've witnessed users being abused by those in power, and noted a closed-door policy regarding the discussion of operator actions with no recourse to a uniform code of conduct. I simply wish to suggest that we come at it from as unbiased a position as possible - don't start off by seeking to be offended, and be quick to reset to a neutral stance as often as possible, rather than driving up the level of tension and riding it from crest to crest. I don't execute this plan perfectly myself, but it's the goal. It's summed up well in the Robustness Principle[2]: Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept. [1]: http://t.co/jUSBbSAsrN [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.orgEwige Blumenkraft! (if awake 'sleep (aref #(sleep dream) (random 2))) -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140904152050.gu3...@blisses.org
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
Hi all,
Le mercredi, 3 septembre 2014, 18.55:04 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I hope that regardless of your opinions about the specific incident,
you would support the ideas that:
- If we have a CoC it should be enforced.
(Snipped a lot of administrativia suggestions.)
To enforce is the wrong verb, I think.
I've always read and understood the CoC as a declaration of intent, a
generic behavior framework; in short, what I understand as a Code of
Conduct: this is how we collectively intend to behave to make our
face-to-face events the best possible experiences for all attendees.
Such a code will always lay down blurry lines, which trespassing will
always be highly subjective.
Seeing the CoC as a guideline, I don't think we should add _more_
administrativia to _enforce_ it, much the contrary.
People will hurt others' feelings in various situations, but most of
these situations don't need to be treated with a big administrative
overhead. In fact, approaching another attendee and telling her I
didn't feel treated with respect when you {said,did} that and that. or
Did you notice that this statement of yours might have been taken as an
offense by this other participant? [0]. There's no need to refer to the
CoC when saying so, but it helps adjusting each other's behaviors for a
healthy conference.
The CoC should not be seen as law, it certainly isn't: by its nature, it
doesn't say this class of actions will give you a yellow card, this
other class will get you expelled from the conference (and it most
certainly should not). I think that we should all consider ourselves
guardians of the CoC and push towards its goals throughout the various
Debian events we attend. When severe violations occur, we do have
antiharassment@d.o which _must_ have some interpretation and action room
to proceed to useful feedbacks to offenders or actions against them. All
severe violations _will_ be different and will call to different
actions.
In conclusion, I think we should stop building administrative procedures
to enforce the CoC but start integrating it as a part of our collective
and individual responsibilities as Debian events attendees; there's
antiharassment@ for the upper tier of violations. We should stop seeing
the CoC as ways to restrain others, but rather as a set of tools to
collectively make our conferences better places to be. We can all make
this happen without layers of appeal bodies.
Cheers,
OdyX
[0] I've got this type of feedback twice during the conference, and I'm
very thankful of both.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/12506381.TS1L0OLTsz@gyllingar
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
- Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com wrote: I'm saying it *does* do that but I am saying that we can't ever allow it to. Oops. Should read I'm not saying it *does* do that Sorry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20794350.13621409856747573.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 2014-09-04 17:40, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: In conclusion, I think we should stop building administrative procedures to enforce the CoC but start integrating it as a part of our collective and individual responsibilities as Debian events attendees; there's antiharassment@ for the upper tier of violations. We should stop seeing the CoC as ways to restrain others, but rather as a set of tools to collectively make our conferences better places to be. We can all make this happen without layers of appeal bodies. To me, this is the best contribution yet to this thread. It makes clear that change is happening, but acknowledges that change does not happen over night, no matter how much we would like that to be the case. It frames the problem not as a constraint, but as a positive goal we all can subscribe to no matter what, and the CoC merely as one tool along that way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5408d294.6000...@kvr.at
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:29:36 Ian Jackson wrote: I think more guidance for the teams involved would be helpful. The Debconf and Debian CoC statements are too difficult to amend. The DC and Debian teams should develop a process document which those responsible would use to guide their actions. That document should: * Give some examples of behaviours with in each case the appropriate response. This will greatly assist the decisionmaking team. * Say who is responsible for dealing with complaints about bad behaviour occurring at (or associated with) Debian conferences and meetings. It seems to me that a conference raises different issues to the mostly online interactions in the rest of the project. The nature of violations is likely to be different; the evidential basis is going to be different; and the required timescale for a response is much shorter. ISTM therefore that CoC complaints about behaviour at (or associated with) a Debian event such as a conference should be dealt with by the conference team (or a subteam of the conference team). * Say what should be done with complaints which are initially made to someone else. (Answer: they should - with the complainant's consent - be passed directly to those responsible for investigating and adjudicating the complaint.) * State that decisions on the appropriate response to a violation should be made without involvement of the DPL or the press team, and should be without fear or favour (whether towards complainant or accused). * Outline our approach to violations by guest speakers, or other parties who attend the conference (or associated events) only briefly, where it is not possible to eject the violator (nor to threaten to, in order to extract an apology and promise of better behaviour). * Outline whether and when any public statements will be made, and the rules for data sharing with other events. I'm sure that we can borrow some wording from other organisations. I would suggest investigating SF conventions, and social justice organisations and feminist sources, to see what they have to offer. The software world is still lagging on this somewhat. We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/16588529.bzktYu6GsV@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
* Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com, 2014-09-03, 07:59: We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. And broadcast delay. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140903122748.ga1...@jwilk.net
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
[Scott Kitterman, 2014-09-03] On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:29:36 Ian Jackson wrote: I'm sure that we can borrow some wording from other organisations. I would suggest investigating SF conventions, and social justice organisations and feminist sources, to see what they have to offer. The software world is still lagging on this somewhat. We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which is not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times! and more seriously, the day Debian will do censorship is the day I retire from the project. [¹] Poland was occupied by Russia until 1989 (that's how Allies thanked us for fighting Germany since the beginning, on all fronts. Now they tell us Enigma was broken by Brits and Poland is responsible for polish nazi camps²) [²] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_controversy -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140903124238.gj4...@sts0.p1otr.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/3/14, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote: * Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com, 2014-09-03, 07:59: We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. And broadcast delay. Better still, a button on everyone's seat in the audience, so everyone can play censor - that would be a hoot! Or perhaps a +1/-1 button, and it acts as a voting process, whilst the +1s are winning the microphone stays on :) This would of course remove all responsibility from the speaker, and any sanctions would have to be brought against all the listeners of the talk, since they are the censors, and therefore responsible. And then a third COC violation button, which causes the last 5 minutes of the talk to be immediately broadcast to a special violations review list (or live wireless bluetooth broadcast at the event in real time), which list/ review channel is of course public for anyone to sign up to - this is how the community must work of course - group decision making :) On the other hand, perhaps a rating system - each talk, presentation, interview etc, is rated as G, PG, R, AO, and in this way, listeners/ attendees can make informed decisions about the content they wish to view/ participate in? Cheers, Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnst_48gekht2hvqmum4rs_nzslghbiwnhxjuv9q5gno...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which is not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times! Is it `censorship' that the DebConf CoC bans sexualised imagery in slides ? My point being that the word `censorship' is just a way of raising the political temperature. It doesn't add anything. And for the record, I'm not suggesting any of the extreme proposals here and I think equating my email with them is offensive. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21511.9298.56189.576...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
- Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: Or perhaps a +1/-1 button, and it acts as a voting process, whilst the +1s are winning the microphone stays on :) +1! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/13099329.9881409755632229.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2014-09-03] We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. I am disappointed; the response could have been so much more cpnstructive. yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which is not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times! Is your position then that condes of conduct and enforcing harassment policies are a form of censorship? (I am congnizent that you have not stated this, and harassment was not part of this discussion, but I do believe it is related) and more seriously, the day Debian will do censorship is the day I retire from the project. How do you suppose we keep the atmosphere from devolving back to the poisonous flame-fest days, and enforce various codes of conduct policies? I have seen far too many tech conferences without codes of conduct devolve into misogynistic and occasionally racist experiences. The argument that codes of conduct are forms of censorship is frequently made, but, I am afraid, not very convincingly. manoj -- Good news from afar can bring you a welcome visitor. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On September 3, 2014 10:23:14 AM EDT, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which is not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times! Is it `censorship' that the DebConf CoC bans sexualised imagery in slides ? My point being that the word `censorship' is just a way of raising the political temperature. It doesn't add anything. And for the record, I'm not suggesting any of the extreme proposals here and I think equating my email with them is offensive. I'm offended at the use of the CoC as a political hammer. I've watched the entire video. There was nothing sexualized in what he says. I think you're doing a fine job of raising the temperature on your own. As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be open to that. While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/02c2393f-4f63-4294-ace3-f87cf5473...@email.android.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
[Manoj Srivastava, 2014-09-03] Is your position then that condes of conduct and enforcing harassment policies are a form of censorship? (I am congnizent that you no, if I'd think that, I'd retire already, no? and more seriously, the day Debian will do censorship is the day I retire from the project. How do you suppose we keep the atmosphere from devolving back to the poisonous flame-fest days, and enforce various codes of conduct policies? I have seen far too many tech conferences without codes of conduct devolve into misogynistic and occasionally racist experiences. The argument that codes of conduct are forms of censorship is frequently made, but, I am afraid, not very convincingly. my point is some people react out of proportion (and that's why I did as well, didn't you notice at least a bit of sarcasm in my mail?). Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140903160740.gn4...@sts0.p1otr.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On September 3, 2014 11:17:41 AM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2014-09-03] We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. I am disappointed; the response could have been so much more cpnstructive. yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which is not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times! Is your position then that condes of conduct and enforcing harassment policies are a form of censorship? (I am congnizent that you have not stated this, and harassment was not part of this discussion, but I do believe it is related) and more seriously, the day Debian will do censorship is the day I retire from the project. How do you suppose we keep the atmosphere from devolving back to the poisonous flame-fest days, and enforce various codes of conduct policies? I have seen far too many tech conferences without codes of conduct devolve into misogynistic and occasionally racist experiences. The argument that codes of conduct are forms of censorship is frequently made, but, I am afraid, not very convincingly. None of those things are at issue in this case. It's not relevant. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3e565c2b-f33d-4fd6-bb26-c9ceb5b4c...@email.android.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Manoj Srivastava, 2014-09-03] Is your position then that condes of conduct and enforcing harassment policies are a form of censorship? (I am congnizent that you no, if I'd think that, I'd retire already, no? I am glad to hear that. and more seriously, the day Debian will do censorship is the day I retire from the project. How do you suppose we keep the atmosphere from devolving back to the poisonous flame-fest days, and enforce various codes of conduct policies? I have seen far too many tech conferences without codes of conduct devolve into misogynistic and occasionally racist experiences. The argument that codes of conduct are forms of censorship is frequently made, but, I am afraid, not very convincingly. my point is some people react out of proportion (and that's why I did as well, didn't you notice at least a bit of sarcasm in my mail?). I could not be sure. Feeling and emotional nuances are hard to convey in email,and I certainly struggle with correctly judging peoples intent if they are at odds with what is expressed in writing. So, if there was a speaker guideline in play, and if the delegates determine that that was violated, I shall be disappointed if nothing was done due to the stature of the speaker. Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. Respect for others seems to be a part of our CoC, no? manoj -- The trouble with eating Italian food is that five or six days later you're hungry again. -- George Miller Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On September 3, 2014 12:47:08 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Manoj Srivastava, 2014-09-03] Is your position then that condes of conduct and enforcing harassment policies are a form of censorship? (I am congnizent that you no, if I'd think that, I'd retire already, no? I am glad to hear that. and more seriously, the day Debian will do censorship is the day I retire from the project. How do you suppose we keep the atmosphere from devolving back to the poisonous flame-fest days, and enforce various codes of conduct policies? I have seen far too many tech conferences without codes of conduct devolve into misogynistic and occasionally racist experiences. The argument that codes of conduct are forms of censorship is frequently made, but, I am afraid, not very convincingly. my point is some people react out of proportion (and that's why I did as well, didn't you notice at least a bit of sarcasm in my mail?). I could not be sure. Feeling and emotional nuances are hard to convey in email,and I certainly struggle with correctly judging peoples intent if they are at odds with what is expressed in writing. So, if there was a speaker guideline in play, and if the delegates determine that that was violated, I shall be disappointed if nothing was done due to the stature of the speaker. Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. Respect for others seems to be a part of our CoC, no? Respect has limits. As a project we've decided not to respect certain types of communication and people that insist on engaging in such communication (see the text of the CoC for details). Given the question he was trying to answer (which was pretty darn loaded), his answer would have been incomplete without his opinion about the FSF. I like that we have a CoC, but this kind of political witch hunt is exactly the reason many people argued against it. I'd rather no CoC than this. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ef99ca80-a7b7-45b2-a4b0-190fd57aa...@email.android.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be open to that. While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior. Often the difference between expressing an opinion in an acceptable manner and expressing it unacceptably is indeed how one phrases it, so the devil lies in the details Having said that, I have just rewatched the talk, and I personally was not offended. I do think calling people bigots is rude, and in a way attacks their expression of their closely held opinions -- which is exactly what people here seem to want to defend. People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. manoj -- Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. Howard Roark, in Ayn Rand's _The Fountainhead_ Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On September 3, 2014 12:52:44 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be open to that. While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior. Often the difference between expressing an opinion in an acceptable manner and expressing it unacceptably is indeed how one phrases it, so the devil lies in the details Having said that, I have just rewatched the talk, and I personally was not offended. I do think calling people bigots is rude, and in a way attacks their expression of their closely held opinions -- which is exactly what people here seem to want to defend. People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. If I believe someone has lied to me, I can't envision a way to say that that won't offend them. No matter how well or poorly he put his opinion, some people were going to have a case of butt hurt over it. Avoiding offence is a great goal, but sometimes (and I think this is one of those times), it isn't possible to avoid it without overly restraining free expression. In cases where free expression and avoiding offence are conflicting, free expression has to win out. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ca8a0a35-78fb-4078-8dee-c8d51d16b...@email.android.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com writes: Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: How do you suppose we keep the atmosphere from devolving back to the poisonous flame-fest days, and enforce various codes of conduct policies? I have seen far too many tech conferences without codes of conduct devolve into misogynistic and occasionally racist experiences. The argument that codes of conduct are forms of censorship is frequently made, but, I am afraid, not very convincingly. None of those things are at issue in this case. It's not relevant. What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further, about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything that's been said in this mailing list. Even if you're right and this is all inspired by some specific incident, the general questions are still worth discussing seriously in their own right. There's no need to dismiss the entire conversion (or, worse, be flippant about it in a way that implies that Debian doesn't care about the experience of people on its mailing lists or at its conferences) just because you *think* you disagree with the motives of the person who raised the issues. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87mwagwrgi@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. Neil Gaiman writes: I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday which included the phrase `In these days of political correctness...' talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, `That's not actually anything to do with `political correctness'. That's just treating other people with respect.' Which made me oddly happy. I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase `politically correct' wherever we could with `treating other people with respect', and it made me smile. You should try it. It's peculiarly enlightening. I know what you're thinking now. You're thinking `Oh my god, that's treating other people with respect gone mad!' Happy Valentine's Day. http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/43087620460/i-was-reading-a-book-about-interjections-oddly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21511.20623.530700.839...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further, about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything that's been said in this mailing list. It would be disingenous of me to say that my message isn't prompted by a specific incident. For obvious reasons I haven't explained what that incident is. I'm assuming that Russ hasn't seen my other message about this, on another forum. I hope that regardless of your opinions about the specific incident, you would support the ideas that: - If we have a CoC it should be enforced. That includes taking action on justified complaints, and dismissing unjustified ones. - It should be clear who is responsible for decisionmaking about CoC complaints. Complaints sent somewhere else should be passed to the decisionmakers (with the complainant's consent, of course). - CoC enforcement should not depend on whether the alleged violator is politically important. - Those responsible for CoC enforcement should have some examples to help them make their decisions.[1] - CoC decisionmaking should not involve the DPL or the press team. (The press team should of course be involved to help with drafting, once the general substance of public statement has been decided on; and to help if a CoC dispute becomes a matter of public discourse.) - CoC decisionmaking regarding events at a conference should be done promptly and in person if possible - specifically, without needing to involve people who are far away and in the wrong timezone. - CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines helping them decide whether and when to take any public action, and what information (if any) to pass on to (which) future event organisers.[1] - CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines about whether to inform complainants of the outcome of a complaint. (I think the complainant should almost always be informed of the outcome but even if you disagree surely the actual practice should be agreed, rather than made up on the fly.) [1] [1] The presence of guidelines, including examples, is important because these decisions are often difficult and controversial. Unsupported decisionmaking in such situations typically results in delay, the consideration of irrelevant factors, the failure to consider all relevant factors, a reluctance to take positive action of any kind, and, ultimately, poor decisions. Perhaps if we had had clear authority, and those in authority had the support of guidelines answering these kinds of questions, I would have had a response saying that my complaint had been considered, but wasn't considered justified. I would have found that disappointing but I wouldn't have felt the need to pursue it. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21511.22008.396527.517...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
[Ian Jackson, 2014-09-03] Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. Neil Gaiman writes: [...] that's not what I think about political correctness, quite the opposite actually, but if it makes you happy, so be it. Please stop CCing me, though - I'm subscribing -project. -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140903180808.go4...@sts0.p1otr.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org writes: [Ian Jackson, 2014-09-03] Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. Neil Gaiman writes: [...] that's not what I think about political correctness, quite the opposite actually, but if it makes you happy, so be it. Please stop CCing me, though - I'm subscribing -project. This may be a case where people for whom English is not their first language, or who are otherwise not embedded in the political debates about the English term political correctness, may not realize the land mines they're stepping on. At least in the United States, people who use the term political correctness in all seriousness as something they dislike and think is bad are generally people with whom you would not want to share a project and people who you would be best off avoiding. This viewpoint is correlated with racism, sexism, and other really anti-social behavior. Its most vocal public proponents, in the US political arena, are people who feel the major problem facing society is not that bigotry is tolerated in the public sphere but that other people dare to call them on their bigotry and imply it's unacceptable. Expect to see, for example, the KKK ranting about political correctness. However, the term got exported to the broader world, and I suspect that, outside our particular political hotbed, others are using it as a gentler sort of term for getting too caught up on exact phrasings or taking offense too readily. Just be aware that is NOT what many people in the United States will take the term to mean. By using it, you are risking allying yourself with people you probably do not want to be associated with. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871trswojf@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. This thread is not about whether we care about people being offensive (which, btw, is terribly subjective). This thread is about whether the CoC should be used to enforce people *not* being offensive. And that is a very slippery slope with no bottom in sight. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 09/03/2014 07:21 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com writes: Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: How do you suppose we keep the atmosphere from devolving back to the poisonous flame-fest days, and enforce various codes of conduct policies? I have seen far too many tech conferences without codes of conduct devolve into misogynistic and occasionally racist experiences. The argument that codes of conduct are forms of censorship is frequently made, but, I am afraid, not very convincingly. None of those things are at issue in this case. It's not relevant. What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further, about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything that's been said in this mailing list. Hmm, how can you argue this with the statement that we should not invite Linus on future conferences? Even if you're right and this is all inspired by some specific incident, the general questions are still worth discussing seriously in their own right. There's no need to dismiss the entire conversion (or, worse, be flippant about it in a way that implies that Debian doesn't care about the experience of people on its mailing lists or at its conferences) just because you *think* you disagree with the motives of the person who raised the issues. True, but it's also unfair to dismiss the specific case because you want to take it broader. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54078163.4000...@debian.org
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: On September 3, 2014 10:23:14 AM EDT, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which is not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times! Is it `censorship' that the DebConf CoC bans sexualised imagery in slides ? My point being that the word `censorship' is just a way of raising the political temperature. It doesn't add anything. And for the record, I'm not suggesting any of the extreme proposals here and I think equating my email with them is offensive. I'm offended at the use of the CoC as a political hammer. As are many. Emailing lists off of debian infrastructure have been created and those who enjoy certain ... freedoms of expression ... have migrated, at least partly. I've watched the entire video. There was nothing sexualized in what he says. I think you're doing a fine job of raising the temperature on your own. As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be open to that. While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior. Well put. Can we provide some sort of system (eg ratings) to absolve speakers by way of implied or explicit informed consent? On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: On September 3, 2014 12:52:44 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be open to that. While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior. One woman's opinion is another mans offensive speech. This is the fundamental problem, not with the COC per se, but with the doors it opens up, and why I believe so many spoke and voted against it. Often the difference between expressing an opinion in an acceptable manner and expressing it unacceptably is indeed how one phrases it, so the devil lies in the details And indeed, some people find forced policitical correcteness in speech to be (sometimes) bland, lacking in honesty, catering to a cotton wool society where every self-indulgent weakness of personality must be pampered, and in general soul destroying. But what to do? as those with genuine fear and/ or fragility shall be affected and shall here and there complain, and some individuals would genuinely have an intention to cause grief or harm, and some would genuinely do so unwittingly. Having said that, I have just rewatched the talk, and I personally was not offended. I do think calling people bigots is rude, and in a way attacks their expression of their closely held opinions -- which is exactly what people here seem to want to defend. People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. Is it ever ok to speak an opinion which others may find offensive? (I don't think this ought be in dispute - how can you know for sure, you can't.) If I believe someone has lied to me, I can't envision a way to say that that won't offend them. And if true, they deserve to be offended in this way! How about offensive facts? Is it always ok to speak facts or stats, which some may find offensive? No matter how well or poorly he put his opinion, some people were going to have a case of butt hurt over it. Avoiding offence is a great goal, but sometimes (and I think this is one of those times), it isn't possible to avoid it without overly restraining free expression. In cases where free expression and avoiding offence are conflicting, free expression has to win out. Sad! Now you're already talking about valid restraining of free expression. The conversation is already here! Look where we've come. How about the concept of informed consent to creative expressions of a nature which may offend some? How hard would it be to simply prefix every talk with a rating, such as is used in the film industry: G - general, suitable for all ages PG - parents guidance recommended R - restricted, may offend some AO - adults only, contains expressions which may be found offensive The only caveat is that R and AO talks would need to be in rooms, so general passers by won't overhear
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. Neil Gaiman writes: I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday which included the phrase `In these days of political correctness...' talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, `That's not actually anything to do with `political correctness'. That's just treating other people with respect.' Which made me oddly happy. I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase `politically correct' wherever we could with `treating other people with respect', and it made me smile. You should try it. It's peculiarly enlightening. I enjoy blonde jokes. I'm blonde. I enjoy female jokes, and male jokes. My gender does not stop me from enjoying either. I am caucasian, and yet I enjoy Wild Cherry - Play That Funky Music, and Sgt. Slick - White Treble, Black Bass. I am totally clueless as to whether I am officially racist, bigotted, sexist or any or none of these; it's too complicated and I don't give a flying firetruck! But I have empathy for those who are distraught, distressed or otherwise in need of some TLC. Our humanity demands that we consider one another, when genuine needs are apparent. To not do so is offensive to me. So, informed consent probably needs more than simplistic ratings. Perhaps a specific listing of potentially objectionable anything; let's have our informed consent cake and eat it too - let's live an abundance of informed consent. Warning, this talk/presentation contains communication or may contain expressions including: - sex - rape - gore - pedophilia - bestiality - war - racism - sexism - crude jokes - jokes around minority bashing - claims of FSF zealot's' bigotry and of course, no need to limit ourselves to just this list. May be have legs? Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSSukdGzh1OnWy=zoqfa-svtdca23fhpwk47w20cmgj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. This thread is not about whether we care about people being offensive (which, btw, is terribly subjective). This thread is about whether the CoC should be used to enforce people *not* being offensive. And that is a very slippery slope with no bottom in sight. Then we should strip language out of the CoC about being respectful to people and making attendees feel welcome, to avoid giving a false impression that those things are actually important and shall be enforced. manoj -- Hlade's Law: If you have a difficult task, give it to a lazy person -- they will find an easier way to do it. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Russ Allbery writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further, about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything that's been said in this mailing list. It would be disingenous of me to say that my message isn't prompted by a specific incident. For obvious reasons I haven't explained what that incident is. I'm assuming that Russ hasn't seen my other message about this, on another forum. This in fact is, in my extremely high opnion, a classic example of the tyranny of the COC! Everyone in this thread has been SO PC, no one dares post the link, or even name the even so that it might be searchable! And to top it off, walk on egg shells because of assumptions that we might offend simply by assuming Ian was responding to the event. S!!! Ian, thank you so much for your honesty, and it's a breath of fresh air! Thank you, genuinely! Yet the example stands! Stands tall, like a proud and long COC! We being to censor one another... Mind the egg shells folks! They'll be cuttin' yer feet already! I hope that regardless of your opinions about the specific incident, you would support the ideas that: - If we have a CoC it should be enforced. The COC starts to be swung in our faces. Or rather, we start to swing it in our own faces! That includes taking action on justified complaints, and dismissing unjustified ones. By the all-benevolent, ever benevolent, and never-to-be- challenged-as-benevolent-you-miserable-serfs censors! I vehemently oppose the premise! whilst I laud the goal! Perhaps try achieve the aims of the COC rather than enforce the COC?? It seems almost impossible for humans to not reinvent the tyrannical democractic state! It blows my effing mind, to be blunt. - It should be clear who is responsible for decisionmaking about CoC complaints. Complaints sent somewhere else should be passed to the decisionmakers (with the complainant's consent, of course). Oohh yeah!! Bring on the censors! We know where that leads, we've seen it just a couple months ago on the d-community-offtopic list. But hey, don't let me stop your descent. Roads to hell and pavings of good intentions. I've said it before, and I doubt there's any point my repeating it these days; cotton wool knows no bounds these days. - CoC enforcement should not depend on whether the alleged violator is politically important. Politicaly impotent then? Yeah that's it! We must defend the politically impotent! All minorities must be catered to, and every talk, every presentation, nay, every off the record discussion, must be pounded with censors, moderators, curators and vettors! Don't hold back now. - Those responsible for CoC enforcement should have some examples to help them make their decisions.[1] Don't worry about that. The pace with which the problems of the tyranny of the almighty COC has quickened is surprising even to me. And, and I'm quite serious on this, without more people seeing those problems of their own accord, an enlightened approach is a waste of time, so yes I've just contradicted myself. Although I hold that external authority is the refuge of the weak, PCness the refuge of the unimaginative, democracy and enforcement of laws/statutes/COCs the refuge of the lazy, I also hold that the lessons of history and of so called democratic society have not been learnt. Not in the slightest. So it is actually in all our interest, that we run the path of laws (the COC), enforcement, nomination of enforcers, and experience the full depth of that which follows, which given the pace of our IT industry ought only take a few short years. Knock yourselves out, since it might truly result in some enlightenment after the fact. I believe this. - CoC decisionmaking should not involve the DPL or the press team. (The press team should of course be involved to help with drafting, once the general substance of public statement has been decided on; and to help if a CoC dispute becomes a matter of public discourse.) Fully agreed. - CoC decisionmaking regarding events at a conference should be done promptly and in person if possible - specifically, without needing to involve people who are far away and in the wrong timezone. Definitely. - CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines helping them decide whether and when to take any public action, and what information (if any) to pass on to (which) future event organisers.[1] Absolutely. Otherwise it's a mess of personality and personal opinions, which was the point of the COC in the first place. - CoC decisionmakers should
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: On 9/4/14, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Russ Allbery writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further, about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything that's been said in this mailing list. It would be disingenous of me to say that my message isn't prompted by a specific incident. For obvious reasons I haven't explained what that incident is. I'm assuming that Russ hasn't seen my other message about this, on another forum. This in fact is, in my extremely high opnion, a classic example of the tyranny of the COC! Everyone in this thread has been SO PC, no one dares post the link, or even name the even so that That should have been name the event. But I replied for another reason - I personally have no idea what the event is, how to find it, what it entails, why it was/is/could possibly be considered as, offensive, and so *my* contribution to this discussion is likely a percentage point below 100 due to my lack of data. But has that data been provided? NO! I am not treated like an adult. I am treated like an ignorant delicate ! But at least we are abiding the COC. Do not ignore the COC - it swingeth proud. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSQQM7+CqNo4GbYK373ZyBNpGGJVzfKKqaR=7j_igdm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org writes: [Ian Jackson, 2014-09-03] Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness things that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't want to change it. Neil Gaiman writes: [...] that's not what I think about political correctness, quite the opposite actually, but if it makes you happy, so be it. Please stop CCing me, though - I'm subscribing -project. This may be a case where people for whom English is not their first language, or who are otherwise not embedded in the political debates about the English term political correctness, may not realize the land mines they're stepping on. At least in the United States, people who use the term political correctness in all seriousness as something they dislike and think is bad are generally people with whom you would not want to share a project and people who you would be best off avoiding. This viewpoint is correlated with racism, sexism, and other really anti-social behavior. Its most vocal public proponents, in the US political arena, are people who feel the major problem facing society is not that bigotry is tolerated in the public sphere but that other people dare to call them on their bigotry and imply it's unacceptable. Expect to see, for example, the KKK ranting about political correctness. Thank you. That is inciteful. Sorry, insightful indeed. (May be not the best place for such a non pun, anyway ... egg shells neverending, it feels sad.) However, the term got exported to the broader world, and I suspect that, outside our particular political hotbed, others are using it as a gentler sort of term for getting too caught up on exact phrasings or taking offense too readily. Just be aware that is NOT what many people in the United States will take the term to mean. By using it, you are risking allying yourself with people you probably do not want to be associated with. Thank you for that understanding. You are correct, at least wrt Australia. Regards Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnstfqvyt4jtpmbzrknklakq4hbjwlkkykqw0kx-5fe9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes: On 09/03/2014 07:21 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further, about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything that's been said in this mailing list. Hmm, how can you argue this with the statement that we should not invite Linus on future conferences? That was not a statement that anyone has made on this mailing list. True, but it's also unfair to dismiss the specific case because you want to take it broader. No specific case was raised on this mailing list. I realize that we're not particularly good about this, but in this case I think it is particularly important to be clear about what discussion we're having, and where, to avoid making rash statements in places where they are not constructive and to be certain about exactly what topic we, as a project, want to discuss. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8738c8qiyl@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 2014-09-04 01:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. This thread is not about whether we care about people being offensive (which, btw, is terribly subjective). This thread is about whether the CoC should be used to enforce people *not* being offensive. And that is a very slippery slope with no bottom in sight. Then we should strip language out of the CoC about being respectful to people and making attendees feel welcome, to avoid giving a false impression that those things are actually important and shall be enforced. This hyperbole is not productive; neither is the hyperbole on the other side of this discussion (mostly when this thread started). Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Ian's position, as Russ observed, he phrased his issues in the form of general questions that probably merit discussion regardless of whether they were motivated by a specific incident or not. Just to be clear: my subjective impression is that the specific incident wasn't one, whatever offense their might have been was blown way, *way* out of proportion, and merely fretting over the past is a waste of time. In fact, my subjective impression (especially after follow-up discussions with other attendees) is that some people were upset purely because of the opinions themselves, and I believe they would have been just as upset had they been articulated in a 100% CoC-compliant manner (by that, I'm not admitting the CoC was violated). But that is all irrelevant, as the specific incident is not on the table here. The questions raised by Ian in his initial mail would have been just as valid if he had posted them a month before DebConf14, and they will be just as valid at DebConf15. He took care to be completely objective (hence the reason why we are still talking about a specific event instead of naming it), so I don't see why all these inflammatory remarks (back and forth) are necessary. It should be obvious that I completely disagree with Ian's view on the specific incident, but despite that I agree with him that some of the questions he presented are important and should be addressed. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5407c080.6070...@kvr.at
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On September 3, 2014 7:34:10 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. This thread is not about whether we care about people being offensive (which, btw, is terribly subjective). This thread is about whether the CoC should be used to enforce people *not* being offensive. And that is a very slippery slope with no bottom in sight. Then we should strip language out of the CoC about being respectful to people and making attendees feel welcome, to avoid giving a false impression that those things are actually important and shall be enforced. It's not the Uber important thing that always takes precedence over everything else. That doesn't make it not important nor does it mean we don't care. These issues are not typically made of black and white. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/356bbc84-e57c-4819-a228-a6edecb19...@email.android.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Thu, Sep 04 2014, Christian Kastner wrote: On 2014-09-04 01:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made. This thread is not about whether we care about people being offensive (which, btw, is terribly subjective). This thread is about whether the CoC should be used to enforce people *not* being offensive. And that is a very slippery slope with no bottom in sight. Then we should strip language out of the CoC about being respectful to people and making attendees feel welcome, to avoid giving a false impression that those things are actually important and shall be enforced. This hyperbole is not productive; neither is the hyperbole on the other side of this discussion (mostly when this thread started). Err. It is not meant to be hyperbole. But nice try being dismissive. Kudos. The CoC talks about: *) All attendees are expected to treat all people and facilities with respect and help create a welcoming environment. *) We ask all our members, speakers, volunteers, attendees and guests to adopt these principles. *) Sometimes this means we need to work harder to ensure we're creating an environment of trust and respect where all who come to participate feel comfortable and included. *) Respect yourself, and respect others. Be courteous to those around you. *) We ask everyone to be aware that we will not tolerate intimidation, harassment, or any abusive, discriminatory or derogatory behavior by anyone at any Debian event or in related online media. If we are not going to enforce these principles, for they are slippery slopes, we should indeed take them out of the CoC, so as to not misrepresent the nature of the experience people might have. It might make a difference to people as to what kind of CoC exosts (some scince fiction authors have stated on blogs that they shall not attent conferences without a CoC, so it is not unforseeable that people might make decisions based on the CoC. We should not have things in the CoC we have no intention of enforcing, slippery slope or otherwise.) manoj -- A man paints with his brains and not with his hands. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
