29 Apr
2024
29 Apr
'24
6:17 a.m.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:58, Jonas Schäfer <jonas(a)wielicki.name> wrote:
I do, but it's almost a bullet-pointed list, and does that mean things not
on the list are a reason not to be welcoming?
I also have issues with "harassment-free" - I mean, yes, obviously, but I
rather hoped than 2.1 conveyed a higher bar than merely not being harassed.
I don't think the community has ever harassed people; but it's most
certainly made them feel less than welcome before.
I would take some issue with "vague"; it's not intended to be vague,
but
broad, and there is very much a distinction.
Well, I'm possibly biased, but 2.1 was the bit that in terms of tone I was
happiest with, despite the fact that it broke the rule that I mixed
examples with the primary text. And worryingly, this seems to be the root
of much of your concern.
We could add more examples around there, though I hoped that it was
sufficient, or we could actually remove some of the examples out to an
actual bullet-pointed list; this is one of the few sections that doesn't
have one.
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
Oh, and I'd managed to forget about those.
So you're blocking all 1:1 messaging?
Yes, a little. It says "We want to be welcoming […]", but it doesn't quite
paint a picture of what newcomers may expect.
I think my wording makes that clearer ("if you are new you can expect
supportiveness and no patronizing or condescending comments").
I think even if you're not new you should expect that, but I understand
what you're saying.
I think patronising/condescending belongs in a bullet point of things to
avoid in 2.3, doesn't it?
And maybe expand on the newcomer aspect in 2.1?
Hi Dave,
On Montag, 29. April 2024 11:18:57 CEST Dave Cridland wrote:
I was torn on this, no strong opinions on the exact placement.
Yes, and I understand that point of view, but as I say I ended up persuaded
by the competing argument somewhat more, and as a result that's not how 458
is written.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:01, Jonas Schäfer
<jonas(a)wielicki.name> wrote:
> Concretely, I propose that we add to 2.4 Be respectful, the following
> items on
>
> the list of things to avoid:
> > - Use of racist, misogynistic, anti-trans, anti-gay, ableist slurs,
or
>
> other
>
> > derogatory pejoratives for oppressed identity groups against such
>
> groups.
>
> > - Blatantly racist, casteist, ableist, sexist, anti-trans, or
otherwise
>
> offensive and bigoted discourse.
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).
I agree that everything in a CoC is bound to be weaponized by malicious
actors.
However, as pointed out in my original email with my moderator hat on, I
find
explicit lists more useful.
I also like that they send a clear message (not to the
malicious actors,
but
in fact to those seeking protection under the CoC from malicious actors)
that
some thought was spent on this topic instead of just a vague, blanket
statement.
I hope that's not how it comes across. Obviously I know how much I worked
(and reworked) the phrasing, but also I know a lot of thought into specific
bits came from others.
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.
Maybe the wording from the contributor covenant [1], which I only learnt
about
recently but which I find very positive, would be a source of inspiration
then? To quote:
| We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in
our
| community a harassment-free experience for everyone, 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.
I find this a very positive wording at least.
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;
(see above about the vagueness issue)
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.
I like 2.2, it is a good addition. I think it works very well once we as
an
organisation have demonstrated that it is in fact a safe space for an
oppressed group to bring such issues up.
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.
Understood, I think that the C-C wording is more fitting here (sexual
identity, gender identity and sex characteristics are included, which
should
cover that sufficiently AFAIK).
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.
Exactly, tolerance paradox etc.
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.
Then, copy&paste the first paragraph from the Contributor Covenant there?
> In
addition, before the list of things to avoid, I would like to add:
> > Respect others requests for space. That includes to disengage from a
> > discourse if your partner(s) indicate that they do not want to
discuss
a
topic any further. It is not easy to let someone be
"wrong" on the
internet,
> but boundaries are there to be respected. 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.
Oh, don't get me started on the markup wars ;-).
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'm not excellent at phrasing, so I'll put this down as a list of
rfc-esque
requirements of what I was aiming for. When person A indicates boundaries
(e.g. "I don't want to discuss this any further"), then:
- Another person X MUST NOT ping (mention, directly address) person A
about
that topic, unless A explicitly expresses interest
- Another person X SHOULD NOT repeatedly ask person A
to re-evaluate their
stance
- Other people MAY continue a discussion of the topic in public spaces
where
person A is also present (i.e. A does not get to police that Carbons is
not to
be discussed anymore)
(assuming that the topic is not in violation of XEP-0458 already.)
Right, I think I understand what you're trying to say here. But I think
your "rules" are not really practical.
And a second case (which I do not think is covered by
'458 already, but if
it
is, let me know) would be if A says to X "I do not want to discuss with
you
any further":
- X MUST NOT ping (mention, directly address) person A, unless person A
explicitly states otherwise.
(you could argue that A should just block X in this case, but given that
our
venues are email and XMPP, where blocking in public fora is not really a
thing
which works well, I don't think that's enough)
Wording suggestions which cover these cases welcome.
I think we're looking at 2.4 as being where to put this, since it covers
disagreements in general, and say something along the lines of, "It's OK to
agree to disagree", perhaps after the second sentence, "Sometimes these
differences won't be resolved, and that's OK - if your argument isn't
convincing someone, let it stand - and don't continue a debate after
someone 'agrees to disagree'."
> To
section 2.5 ("Be friendly and supportive"), I would like to add
after
> the
>
> first paragraph:
> > This includes being mindful of the abilities of others; nobody is
born
>
> an
>
> > expert in anything and we all had to learn at some point. Be
supportive
of
> newcomers and learners. Do not be patronizing or condescending.
I tried to capture this sentiment in the penultimate sentence of 2.1. Do
you think it needs more? kind regards,
Jonas
[1]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/