On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 05:11, MSavoritias <email@msavoritias.me> wrote:


Dave Cridland kirjoitti 28.1.2025 klo 23.23:


On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 21:06, Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:01 AM JC Brand <lists@opkode.com> wrote:

FWIW, I don't think coming up with ever more fine-grained categorization of what constitutes marginalized persons and putting that in the CoC is the right way to go.

One can always come up with more categories of marginalized people, and trying to enumerate all of them in a CoC is IMO impractical, while mentioning only some of them can create the impression that some categories of people are "more equal" than others.


It isn't always about practical enforcement, it is a statement of values.

As a member who belongs to at least three of the typically listed groups, including LGBT, and I have been assaulted for this, I rarely read the lists but it makes me feel safer in new groups.

Thanks for writing this, it really does help.

I have to admit, I deliberately avoided using the term "LGBT" anywhere, for fear of ending up ina  debate of what other letters were missing.

But what do you think is missing from:

You are welcome at XSF Activities. Ensure that you are also welcoming of others. We want everyone to feel welcome no matter what the colour of their skin, where they live, or where their ancestors came from. We want to welcome people from all cultures, and religions, and of all sizes and shapes. We want people to be welcome no matter their sexual identity or orientation. We want you to feel welcome no matter your level of experience or ability. And we want you to help us make everyone else feel welcomed, too.


As you mentioned elsewhere we are missing the Conduct team to be taken seriously (a Conduct team that has demonstrated it will protect people and that the community trusts to uphold said values). That aside:


To my mind, that's the key here. XEP-0458 can trivially be updated to include additional examples of both good and bad conduct, but if it's not being enforced even to the extent of having a Conduct Team in place, let alone an active one, then the entire thing is moot (that is, a discussion point rather than an action point).

Some points that are missing are listed in the code of conduct in the contributor covenant that jonas' posted.

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/

for example age or caste.


Can you give me some text that covers those, in a similar style?
 

another good example is https://lgbtq.technology/coc.html

some points that are not mentioned in the current CoC are:

- pronouns

What exactly would you say here? 

- harassment.

Harassment is right there in the list in 2.5. 

- No debating the rights and lived experiences of marginalized people in the community.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. That could easily be my ignorance - for the most part, I am not marginalized. But assuming it means what I think it means, it doesn't sound respectful, friendly, or supportive, and certainly not welcoming.

- Deliberate misgendering or use of “dead” or rejected names

I would hope this is overly specific - that is, it can't possibly be seen as respectful or friendly or supportive.

And for what it's worth, we've had multiple members change their names 

as some examples. a more complete also CoC can be found in the JoinJabber Project

https://joinjabber.org/about/community/codeofconduct/

there is also a list at the bottom of the JoinJabber CoC that links to other CoCs that informed it.


Also gnome has a code of conduct here https://conduct.gnome.org/

that says among others

The GNOME community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort, for example in situations involving:

  • “Reverse”-isms, including “reverse racism,” “reverse sexism,” and “cisphobia”
  • Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you.”
  • Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
  • Communicating boundaries or criticizing oppressive behavior in a “tone” you don’t find congenial


Here be tygers - there's a risk, here, that the kinds of criticism that certain people raised in the first round of this turns into a valid one - that is, that bad behaviour can be justified if it's done "for a good reason".

That kind of pitfall was what prompted me to write section 2.2, actually.

Lastly you can see also https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy

and https://kit.pyladies.com/en/latest/policies/coc.html

that say among others also:

  • Using welcoming and inclusive language. We’re accepting of all who wish to take part in our activities, fostering an environment where anyone can participate and everyone can make a difference.

I think XEP-0458 covers this, in most if not all its sections.

  • Unwelcome physical contact, including simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop

last one is especially interesting because i doubt a lot of us have seen it happen but it is one of those cases where we should trust the marginalized communities that have it there as a rule instead of our own privileged.

I agree it's not explicitly called out, and in this case, I think it's worth adding something.

Dave.