29 Apr
2024
29 Apr
'24
3:57 a.m.
Hi Dave,
On Montag, 29. April 2024 11:18:57 CEST Dave Cridland wrote:
Oh, don't get me started on the markup wars ;-).
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").
kind regards,
Jonas
[1]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:01, Jonas Schäfer
<jonas(a)wielicki.name> wrote:
I was torn on this, no strong opinions on the exact placement.
Concretely, I propose that we add to 2.4 Be
respectful, the following
items on
the list of things to avoid:
I think this would belong in 2.3, actually, - 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. 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.
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:
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. 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. 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.)
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.
To section 2.5
("Be friendly and supportive"), I would like to add after
the
first paragraph:
I tried to capture this sentiment in the penultimate sentence of 2.1. Do
you think it needs more? 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.