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