[Members] Re: Extending the XSF Community Code of Conduct (XEP-0458)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:01, Jonas Schäfer <jonas(a)wielicki.name> wrote: I think this would belong in 2.3, actually, but in any case, I tried very hard to avoid explicit lists of what is acceptable. The research I did didn't give me a clear guide on this strategy - some people wrote that you absolutely should list everything that's unacceptable, but other people wrote that such a list essentially becomes a licence to do anything not explicitly listed. Loosely, I felt that anything in a CoC can and will be weaponized against you, which is why everything is - mostly, anyway - written as broad principles rather than lists of examples. (And yes, there is a school of thought that says that the reverse strategy is more effective at deweaponising). In addition, I tried to write section 2 in particular in a friendly, calm, encouraging manner - rather that a stern list of rules which one must not violate. I actually think all your examples here are covered by 2.3 already, in as much as "subjects and expressions that may offend" is deliberately broad; and in common with the bit in 2.2 where if I accidentally used a castist slur (I genuinely have no idea what those might be) someone points it out and I take it as a learning experience and move on, I'd like to think we're covered. As a particular example, I avoided the term "anti-trans" because that subject is heavily contentious; I did in 2.1 explicitly include "sexual identity", which might well be the wrong term, but that's (part of) what I'm aiming for there. I don't think this needs debating here - the goal is presumably to ensure that people from any and all backgrounds are equally welcome in this community, with the sole proviso that they too must be welcoming to everyone else. To wax philosophical for a moment, we are all bigots, but we are exhorted in XEP-0458 to avoid showing it. If you wanted to change or add to cover your concerns, I'd suggest doing so in 2.1 in similar broad terms, rather than trying to police individual phrases. I think I understand what you're trying to achieve here, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. If I understand correctly, you're trying to avoid someone aggressively continuing a conversation when someone else is trying to disengage because the discussion is making them uncomfortable. I get this, but "She should have said if it made her uncomfortable", "Hey, they didn't say I should stop", etc. I do wish that I could have unilaterally stopped discussion of Carbons several times, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean either. Let me ask this question: Under what circumstances do you think a discussion would enter the state that concerns you without having transgressed some other guidance in XEP-0458? I tried to capture this sentiment in the penultimate sentence of 2.1. Do you think it needs more? Dave.