Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[elais]

> This is very twisted and unfair to Taylan.

Is it though? Arguably all of this blew up because of how twisted and unfair 
Taylan is  about this issue generally, given the wiki they run and the fact 
that they’ve been banned from at least one site for this fixation.

Everyone who has commented for the most part have already agreed that they’re 
ok with updating the CoC to match the upstream so why don’t we let this one go 
and change the  CoC.

-- Elais Player

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 01:48:22 +0100
Liliana Marie Prikler  wrote:

> As a nice side-effect, adding it would give us
> two reasons to ban Taylan; first for discriminating against trans
> people based on their sex characteristics and second based on their
> gender identity or expression.

This is very twisted and unfair to Taylan.

Are you saying that even just implying that a trans-woman is not the
same as a cis-woman (or the same for man) is discrimination (strictly
in the negative sense of the word)?


-- 
Thorsten Wilms 

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Lily,

On 2022-02-26 1:48, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:

As a nice side-effect, adding it would give us
two reasons to ban Taylan; first for discriminating against trans
people based on their sex characteristics and second based on their
gender identity or expression.


This is a new low.


we all know the kind of actors who will publicly
apologize only to continue with (pardon my French) shitty behaviour,
rinse and repeat.


Look in a mirror.

Kind regards,

T G-R

Sent from a Web browser.  Excuse or enjoy my brevity.

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Hi simon,

I know I'm late to the party, but given how vocal I was in that other
CoC thread and the positive feedback I received from other contributors
for speaking out, I do think I have a valuable opinion here.

Am Freitag, dem 25.02.2022 um 01:05 +0100 schrieb zimoun:
> Hi,
> 
> The current Guix CoC is adapted from v1.4 [1] and this upstream version
> contains:
> 
>     regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex
>     characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of
>     experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality,
>     personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and
>     orientation.
> 
> [...]
> Any opposition to use this upstream v1.4 list instead of the current
> one?  Other said, add ’sex characteristics’ to the list.
> 
> So, since we are at it, let give a look at the most recent version v2.1
> [3]. :-) I propose to adopt their extended list:
> 
>     regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible
> disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity 
> and expression, level of experience, education,
> socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance,
> race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and
> orientation.
> 
> Any opposition?
Putting the contentious topic of sex characteristics away for a second
(I'll return to it later, promise), this list clarifies disability by
categorizing it into both visible and invisible and also adds caste and
color.  Now to a privileged person who has not been discriminated on
any of the grounds listed among these, caste might sound vaguely
similar to socio-economic status, and within the US and Europe we talk
a lot of how race is defined along the lines of skin color.  Hunting
down Github, there seems to be some evidence, that these were added in
a "cosmetic adjustments"-style commit [5], but as that caused a bunch
of issues, version 2.1 was released explicitly to add these two. 
Before that, visible and invisible disability was expanded in 2.0 with
the goal of being more inclusive.  I do think that these cover more
ground than previously and should definitely be added if we want to
version-bump.

On the topic of sex characteristics, while the term is somewhat badly
chosen thanks biology being super-not-political, I do think the
addition would be significantly less problematic than simply adding
"sex".  It is nowadays understood that these characteristics don't
define "sex", whatever that might be, and only the name has remained
because naming is hard.  As a nice side-effect, adding it would give us
two reasons to ban Taylan; first for discriminating against trans
people based on their sex characteristics and second based on their
gender identity or expression.

> The version 2.1 also adds «Enforcement guidelines».  I propose to
> keep the current «Further details of specific enforcement policies
> may be posted separately.»  While the guidelines might be a good
> thing.  I do not have an opinion.  WDYT?
I agree that the guidelines themselves don't sound bad, but given the
maintainer to audience ratio, I understand that Guix would want to go
its own way in this regard.  As far as public apologies are concerned,
however, I don't think these elicit a proper amount of self-criticism
in most cases – we all know the kind of actors who will publicly
apologize only to continue with (pardon my French) shitty behaviour,
rinse and repeat.

Apart from the mentioned changes, we do already have some of the
changes related to the CoC's presentation, e.g. leading with the
positive environment rather than the behaviour we do not want.  I think
we do share some values with most others who adopt a CoC, so in my
personal opinion, it'd be beneficial to adopt as many things from
upstream as we reasonably can.

Cheers

> 1: <
> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct/>
> 2:
> 
> 3:
> 
> 4: 
5:
https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/commit/4d97cd07359047a69da042f2549dbcbaef2a015f

PS: I know this has been withdrawn, but I'd propose to reconsider given
that most of the derailment appears to be caused (directly in this
thread or indirectly) by a certain someone who has opened another
thread requesting a CoC change.  

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Blake Shaw]

Taylan Kammer  writes:


> The inclusion of 'sex' in the CoC would be to recognize the issues
> faced by female-born people.  As far as I'm aware, no female-born
> person has taken part in the discussion at all, because none seem
> to exist in the community.  (What a coincidence.)

Actually there are cis women in the community. There voices have
just been absent since this discourse began (what a coincidence)

but really, can finally lay this to rest???


-- 
“In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni”

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Taylan Kammer]

On 25.02.2022 21:38, Philip McGrath wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that one of the reasons to have a CoC is to communicate that 
> the identities and experiences of people who face discrimination are not up 
> for debate. Yet here it seems they are, in fact, being called into question, 
> [...]
> 

They are being indeed, but not by me.  The addition I've proposed would have
recognized more types of discrimination, not fewer.  That's the whole point.

Anyhow, update to upstream is better than nothing; at least it acknowledges
sex discrimination indirectly through oblique wording.

-- 
Taylan

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Philip McGrath]

On 2/25/22 11:59, Taylan Kammer wrote:> Transwomen have many challenges 
they have to face, and some of them may be

similar or equivalent to some challenges women have to face, but to claim


I'm concerned that framing "transwomen" and "women" as though they were 
two contrasting groups is itself inconsistent with the current CoC's 
standard of "using welcoming and inclusive language".


While I think the best reading of "Le Deuxième Sexe" affirms that trans 
women are women, I agree with those who have already said that this list 
is not a suitable forum for debating the finer points of feminist theory.


It seems to me that one of the reasons to have a CoC is to communicate 
that the identities and experiences of people who face discrimination 
are not up for debate. Yet here it seems they are, in fact, being called 
into question, even though people have already expressed discomfort and 
asked for it to stop or move off-list.


I've bcc'ed guix-maintain...@gnu.org, since someone requested that earlier.

-Philip

P.S.: Personally, I'm fine with either the current CoC text or with 
Simon's proposed update to bring it into alignment with upstream, if 
that has consensus.

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

I'm a hetero white male from the USA and I would appreciate it if we could keep 
this mailing focused on software development instead of feminist transgender 
meta discussion. It seems quite settled nobody else finds the code of conduct 
lacking in practice so we should probably just move on and accept that this is 
a place for discussing Guix and not for making every paragraph of text conform 
perfectly with everyone's worldview.


Sincerely,

Ryan Sundberg
Principal Software Engineer
Arctype Corporation
(916) 622-2449


 Original Message 
From: Taylan Kammer 
Sent: February 25, 2022 9:29:29 AM PST
To: Blake Shaw , zimoun 
Cc: Guix Devel 
Subject: Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

On 25.02.2022 16:18, Blake Shaw wrote:
> zimoun  writes:
> 
> My position remains unchanged: our codes of conduct should do everything
> possible to be as inclusive as and open to peoples of marginalized
> groups that are discriminated against. White cis men shouldn't be in
> charge of deciding whats best for these people. 
> 
> As far as I can see, not a single woman has come forward to say that
> proposed CoC amendments would benefit or protect them in any way. In
> fact the opposite is the case: two have come forward to say that this
> appears as ploy by men to debate their gender and experience.
> 
> Why are white men so insistent on making changes that would supposedly
> increase inclusivity, despite those from marginalized backgrounds saying
> the opposite is the case here?
> 
> Until a fem contributor comes forward to say that they feel changes
> to the current CoC would bring about some tangible protection to them,
> it seems to me that this discourse is a case of the dominant white cis
> males making changes to "protect women" without the consent of women,
> which has never fared well in history.
> 
> So with that said, I think decisions concerning women should be left to
> women (all women!) to decide.
> 
> ez,
> b
> 

I'm a visibly middle-eastern person living in Germany, and I'm not
cisgender.  Not that it matters.

The worldview I've wished for the CoC to respect, in addition to
those it already respects, is one that comes from a long line of
feminist scholars and activists.

The inclusion of 'sex' in the CoC would be to recognize the issues
faced by female-born people.  As far as I'm aware, no female-born
person has taken part in the discussion at all, because none seem
to exist in the community.  (What a coincidence.)

Anyhow, Zimoun's proposal is merely to update the CoC to upstream,
which continues to be authored by a transwoman, if that matters.

-- 
Taylan

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Taylan Kammer]

On 25.02.2022 16:18, Blake Shaw wrote:
> zimoun  writes:
> 
> My position remains unchanged: our codes of conduct should do everything
> possible to be as inclusive as and open to peoples of marginalized
> groups that are discriminated against. White cis men shouldn't be in
> charge of deciding whats best for these people. 
> 
> As far as I can see, not a single woman has come forward to say that
> proposed CoC amendments would benefit or protect them in any way. In
> fact the opposite is the case: two have come forward to say that this
> appears as ploy by men to debate their gender and experience.
> 
> Why are white men so insistent on making changes that would supposedly
> increase inclusivity, despite those from marginalized backgrounds saying
> the opposite is the case here?
> 
> Until a fem contributor comes forward to say that they feel changes
> to the current CoC would bring about some tangible protection to them,
> it seems to me that this discourse is a case of the dominant white cis
> males making changes to "protect women" without the consent of women,
> which has never fared well in history.
> 
> So with that said, I think decisions concerning women should be left to
> women (all women!) to decide.
> 
> ez,
> b
> 

I'm a visibly middle-eastern person living in Germany, and I'm not
cisgender.  Not that it matters.

The worldview I've wished for the CoC to respect, in addition to
those it already respects, is one that comes from a long line of
feminist scholars and activists.

The inclusion of 'sex' in the CoC would be to recognize the issues
faced by female-born people.  As far as I'm aware, no female-born
person has taken part in the discussion at all, because none seem
to exist in the community.  (What a coincidence.)

Anyhow, Zimoun's proposal is merely to update the CoC to upstream,
which continues to be authored by a transwoman, if that matters.

-- 
Taylan

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Taylan Kammer]

On 25.02.2022 01:05, zimoun wrote:
> 
> Any opposition?
> 

Not from me for sure.  The wording "sex characteristics" was added by the
author of the CoC as a response to my and others' suggestion to add "sex,"
and while I think it's a bad euphemism for just 'sex' (trying very hard to
shoehorn the issues raised into the author's worldview), it's better than
there not being any reference to sex at all.

---

I have to say though, I'm deeply disappointed with the way the other thread
went.

All I wanted was to have a different, arguably more well-established feminist
viewpoint to be respected by the CoC as well, and in response I was vilified
and accused of trolling and harassment.

>From what I understand, none of the active members of the Guix community
know what it's like to be born with female anatomy and mistreated for that
reason.

Transwomen have many challenges they have to face, and some of them may be
similar or equivalent to some challenges women have to face, but to claim
that there are no issues unique to biologically female people (including
transmen and AFAB non-binary people BTW) simply points at a rather deep
ignorance towards sex discrimination.

As it stands, if a person with a classical feminist consciousness about sex
discrimination were to ask me whether the Guix community would show respect
towards her experiences and take her issues seriously, I would not be able
to reassure her.

Rather, it seems that any such woman who enters the community and is open
about her views is going to risk being vilified and lectured about her own
lived experiences.  By a group of male-born people, no less.

The Guix community cannot legitimately call itself a kind and inclusive
community so long as this problem stands.

-- 
Taylan

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Blake Shaw]

zimoun  writes:

My position remains unchanged: our codes of conduct should do everything
possible to be as inclusive as and open to peoples of marginalized
groups that are discriminated against. White cis men shouldn't be in
charge of deciding whats best for these people. 

As far as I can see, not a single woman has come forward to say that
proposed CoC amendments would benefit or protect them in any way. In
fact the opposite is the case: two have come forward to say that this
appears as ploy by men to debate their gender and experience.

Why are white men so insistent on making changes that would supposedly
increase inclusivity, despite those from marginalized backgrounds saying
the opposite is the case here?

Until a fem contributor comes forward to say that they feel changes
to the current CoC would bring about some tangible protection to them,
it seems to me that this discourse is a case of the dominant white cis
males making changes to "protect women" without the consent of women,
which has never fared well in history.

So with that said, I think decisions concerning women should be left to
women (all women!) to decide.

ez,
b

-- 
“In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni”

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 08:47:11 +0100
Tissevert  wrote:

> And, how exactly can "sex characteristics" be involved in the kind of
> interactions we're having in this community ?

For the most part, with the notable exception of conferences, one could
wonder the same about age, body size, visible or invisible disability,
ethnicity, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance,
race, caste, color, religion. All things you may never learn about of
people who you interact with online. Even gender expression just makes
it due to gender-associated names and pronouns.

The list ist not meant to be of characteristics that a sane person
might care about. It has to include the insane. Having seen derogatory
comments about Cis-people, I don’t think discrimination based on actual
equipment is that far out.


> If someone here is able to
> discriminate against someone else based on their "sex characteristics"
> (whatever that means) independently from their "gender identity", then I'm
> ready to bet their problems doesn't belong in the Guix community and its usual
> scope and had rather be discussed within the legal framework instead.

Critics of CoCs would point to the legal framework for nasty cases,
anyway.


> Also, why isn't this message part of the other thread[1] ? How is this
> discussion any different ? Am I missing something obvious here ? If so I am
> truly sorry but I re-read Zimoun's message a couple times and I still fail to
> see the difference with Taylan's patch.

The difference is the connection to upstream changes. I think this is
interesting, as Taylan has been accused of trying to get “sex” in behind
the back of the original author. Also, there likely was a lot
discussion with trans-people involved before the change was made there.


It seems like some people here take the inclusion of sex
characteristics to imply that sex characteristics would matter
in a way that denies people with not-matching equipment their
heartfelt identity. Anyone can decide for themselves that their gender
identity and expression shall not depend on what they have been born
with, but you do not get to decide that for all of mankind. The
audience of the CoC does not have a uniform understanding of these
matters.


-- 
Thorsten Wilms 

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Jonathan McHugh]

February 25, 2022 8:48 AM, "Tissevert"  wrote:

> Are dickpics going to be necessary to sign commits from now on ?

Well, we cant be mandating binary commits now can we?!? This is Guix FFS.

Cmon, if I wanted to be perusing dicks and commits Id be on other mailing lists.

Lets move on. Please.


Jonathan

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 08:47, Tissevert  wrote:

> Also, why isn't this message part of the other thread[1] ?

Why it would be the same thread since this proposal is radically
different: it is an update based on upstream version of [1].

1: 

>How is this
> discussion any different ?

Because this discussion is a routine update.  Note the previous update
from 1.3 to 1.4 is from 2018 [2].

It is different because it is not a proposal based on my personal
choices but an update from v1.4 to v2.1 based on a collective text
already adopted by our community, as well by many other communities [3].

2: 
3: 


> Has the OP accidentally missed it by
> any chance ?

What do you mean?


>  And to avoid remaining on the implicit side of things, yes, I do
> oppose.

Thanks for your opinion.  Do you oppose to my proposal because you think
it is inadequate in the light of the other thread you mention?  Or do
you oppose to a text collectively written by a community lead by
Coraline Ada Ehmke and where our community already adopted an earlier
version?


Cheers,
simon

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Tissevert]

Hi,

And, how exactly can "sex characteristics" be involved in the kind of
interactions we're having in this community ? In particular, as this has
already been explained patiently enough, how are "sex characteristics" any
different from "gender identity" from its perspective ? If someone here is able 
to
discriminate against someone else based on their "sex characteristics"
(whatever that means) independently from their "gender identity", then I'm
ready to bet their problems doesn't belong in the Guix community and its usual
scope and had rather be discussed within the legal framework instead. Are
dickpics going to be necessary to sign commits from now on ?

Also, why isn't this message part of the other thread[1] ? How is this
discussion any different ? Am I missing something obvious here ? If so I am
truly sorry but I re-read Zimoun's message a couple times and I still fail to
see the difference with Taylan's patch. Has the OP accidentally missed it by
any chance ? And to avoid remaining on the implicit side of things, yes, I do
oppose.

Tissevert

[1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-02/msg00198.html

Le Fri, 25 Feb 2022 01:09:46 +0100,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice  a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-02-25 1:05, zimoun wrote:
> > So, since we are at it, let give a look at the most recent version
> > v2.1 [3]. :-) I propose to adopt their extended list:
> > 
> > regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible
> > disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and
> > expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status,
> > nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color,
> > religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
> > 
> > Any opposition?  
> 
> I think this is an excellent idea, Simon (and Ricardo who suggested
> the same).
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> T G-R
> 
> Sent from a Web browser.  Excuse or enjoy my brevity.
> 

Re: Update CoC adapted from upstream 2.1 (instead of 1.4)

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Hi,

On 2022-02-25 1:05, zimoun wrote:

So, since we are at it, let give a look at the most recent version v2.1
[3]. :-) I propose to adopt their extended list:

regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability,
ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression,
level of experience, education, socio-economic status,
nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion,
or sexual identity and orientation.

Any opposition?


I think this is an excellent idea, Simon (and Ricardo who suggested the 
same).


Kind regards,

T G-R

Sent from a Web browser.  Excuse or enjoy my brevity.