25 Apr
2024
25 Apr
'24
10:01 a.m.
Hi everyone,
Going through the CoC again, I notice that it has a few gaps we should
probably address.
While the current wording explicitly prohibits racist language, there are a
lot of other *-isms which are unfortunately quite present in various spaces on
the XMPP network and which sometimes roll into XSF rooms.
I do not think that we want to be perceived as, for instance, an anti-LGBTQIA+
community, so we should extend the CoC to:
a) send the clear message to the world that we won't tolerate behaviour that,
and
b) give our moderators (that includes me in some places) the necessary holding
to enforce when necessary
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.
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.
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 may propose a PR against XEP-0458, but before doing so I wanted to offer
this for discussion on this list.
kind regards,
Jonas
26 Apr
26 Apr
5:01 a.m.
Hi Jonas
On 2024/04/25 18:01, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
Hi everyone,
Going through the CoC again, I notice that it has a few gaps we should
probably address.
While the current wording explicitly prohibits racist language, there are a
lot of other *-isms which are unfortunately quite present in various spaces on
the XMPP network and which sometimes roll into XSF rooms.
I do not think that we want to be perceived as, for instance, an anti-LGBTQIA+
community, so we should extend the CoC to:
a) send the clear message to the world that we won't tolerate behaviour that,
and
b) give our moderators (that includes me in some places) the necessary holding
to enforce when necessary
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.
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.
At the end of the day, the tiniest minority is the individual, and
requiring that we treat each individual with respect and courtesy is
enough, without having to refer to specific (sometimes politically
charged) categories.
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.
I'm +0 on this. Part of me thinks this is already handled by disallowing
harassment.
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 agree and support adding this paragraph.
JC
5:40 a.m.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, 12:01 JC Brand, <lists(a)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
+1
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 agree and support adding this paragraph.
I like the first and third sentences. The second sentence implies a onus
that one shouldn't remain silent when a learner asks a question. Given the
volume of unpaid volunteers, I believe that not being actively supportive
whilst also not being actively condescending either, by saying nothing at
all, is perfectly acceptable. I'd like to reword this to make that clear.
--
Dan / Fishbowler
7:05 a.m.
Hi Dan,
On Freitag, 26. April 2024 13:40:50 CEST Dan Caseley wrote:
Thank you. This is a valid point and I wouldn't want anyone to have the
impression that they are obligated to help anyone. If you have a concrete
proposal for a wording, I'd be curious to hear it (while keeping the
"positive" form of supportiveness. I'd like to add more positive examples to
the CoC so that it's not just "don't do this", but also "do
this").
kind regards,
Jonas
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, 12:01 JC Brand,
<lists(a)opkode.com> wrote:
I will reply to this particular point in the other thread.
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
+1 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 agree and support adding this paragraph.
I like the first and third sentences. The second sentence implies a onus
that one shouldn't remain silent when a learner asks a question. Given the
volume of unpaid volunteers, I believe that not being actively supportive
whilst also not being actively condescending either, by saying nothing at
all, is perfectly acceptable. I'd like to reword this to make that clear. 
8:13 a.m.
On 4/26/24 7:05 AM, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
Thank you. This is a valid point and I wouldn't want anyone to have the
impression that they are obligated to help anyone. If you have a concrete
proposal for a wording, I'd be curious to hear it (while keeping the
"positive" form of supportiveness. I'd like to add more positive examples
to
the CoC so that it's not just "don't do this", but also "do
this").
In my experience in leadership roles at the XSF and IETF, the best thing
to do in such situations is to say "I'm not an expert on Topic X, but
let me introduce you to this person across the room who knows more about
it than I do." With that said, I am somewhat skeptical that we can
describe every possible circumstance in rules like this - there's a
large role for situational judgment in human interactions.
Peter
Hi Dan,
On Freitag, 26. April 2024 13:40:50 CEST Dan Caseley wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, 12:01 JC Brand, <lists(a)opkode.com> wrote:
<snip/>
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 agree and support adding this paragraph.
I like the first and third sentences. The second sentence implies a onus
that one shouldn't remain silent when a learner asks a question. Given the
volume of unpaid volunteers, I believe that not being actively supportive
whilst also not being actively condescending either, by saying nothing at
all, is perfectly acceptable. I'd like to reword this to make that clear.
7:35 a.m.
Hi JC,
On Freitag, 26. April 2024 13:01:12 CEST JC Brand wrote:
I disagree. There are two issues here.
Issue 1: From the outside, it is not possible to distinguish two kinds of
organisations/groups:
- The kind of organisation which has truly engrained that people are people
and that discrimination is not to be tolerated and thus does not see the
necessity of enumerating marginalized groups it cares for.
- The kind of organisation which does, in fact, not care for the well-being of
marginalized groups inside of its structures at all.
I would like the XSF to be clearly recognizable as an organisation which
*does* care, even though we still have a long way to go for that to truly be
in effect.
Issue 2: With my MUC moderator hat on, I *need* that list. I need it (mostly)
not for myself to know what's right and what's wrong, but I need it as a
backing for that, when such specific problematic behaviour occurs, I know that
I am within my mandate to act on it (and to point people at it, saving me a
lot of time and energy). I do not have that if the CoC is handwaivy about
equality (notes on that later).
However, there surely are different ways to express this. Maybe wording like
in the Contributor Covenant [1] are better suited? In fact, they have an
excellent FAQ which may give some insights on why all of this is a good idea
[2].
I'm not fixed on the specific phrasing; what's important to me is that the
message is clear: discrimination and harassment is not being tolerated any
number of attributes, and the attributes we're actually aware of need to be
written down somewhere.
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.
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.
They are though, or should be anyway. People from marginalized groups are just
that, marginalized. We as an organisation should do the extra effort to
support individuals from these groups in order to allow them to be safe in our
spaces, to live up to their potential and what they'd like to achieve and
contribute.
At the end of the day, the tiniest minority is the
individual, and
requiring that we treat each individual with respect and courtesy is
enough, without having to refer to specific (sometimes politically
charged) categories.
Could you clarify "sometimes politically charged"?
kind regards,
Jonas
[1]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/
[2]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq/
27 Apr
27 Apr
1:33 a.m.
On 2024/04/26 15:35, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
<snip>
You're basically advocating for so-called positive discrimination (aka
affirmative action), which is a political position advocated for by
certain political groupings.
I'm on record from previous discussions in saying that I don't think a
supposedly neutral standards organization should be instrumentalized for
the furtherance of political programmes.
There are politically contentious topics surrounding what constitutes
marginalized identities and how one (and society) should go about
accommodating them.
We're running the risk if introducing these politically divisive topics
into the XSF, thereby politicizing the organization which will likely
introduce the same divisiveness, acrimony and bitterness that
characterizes political debates. I don't think this benefits the
organization or aids in the furtherance of standards development.
JC
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.
They are though, or
should be anyway. People from marginalized groups are just
that, marginalized. We as an organisation should do the extra effort to
support individuals from these groups in order to allow them to be safe in our
spaces, to live up to their potential and what they'd like to achieve and
contribute. At the end of
the day, the tiniest minority is the individual, and
requiring that we treat each individual with respect and courtesy is
enough, without having to refer to specific (sometimes politically
charged) categories.
Could you clarify "sometimes politically charged"?
2:36 a.m.
Hello JC,
On Samstag, 27. April 2024 09:33:42 CEST JC Brand wrote:
There are politically contentious topics surrounding what constitutes
marginalized identities and how one (and society) should go about
accommodating them.
We're running the risk if introducing these politically divisive topics
into the XSF, thereby politicizing the organization which will likely
introduce the same divisiveness, acrimony and bitterness that
characterizes political debates.
Oh, the division and bitterness is there. You currently just have the "luxury"
to not see it, because the people who are divided away and get bitter are not
joining and/or have left the XSF (yes, this is happening / has happened).
[I said "you", instead of "we", above, because I in fact do see the
division
and bitterness. It takes place outside the XSF spaces for obvious reasons.]
On 2024/04/26 15:35, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
"supposedly" is the key word here.
Neutrality does not exist. Let me paint you a picture (pun intended). In
photography, an important parameter when baking a picture into something which
can be viewed on screen is the so-called White Balance. Most of the time, it
controls the shift between red and blue in a picture [^1]. White balance is
normally configured by using a piece of plastic which is known to be "neutral
grey" and asking the picture processor to calibrate on that. It will then
shift the tint of the picture so that the sensor values in the area of the
neutral grey card get converted to 50% gray in RGB.
The same thing happens in brains, by the way. The (maybe) white wall in your
room is by no means emitting "white" light in your direction: it is reflecting
whichever colour your room lighting currently has, which is very unlikely to
be what some standards committee has defined as neutral white.
Now, does anyone remember that dress picture from a couple years back, which
divided the internet on whether the dress was blue or golden? That was
basically a white balance issue: without a point of reference for the brain to
identify "gray" in the picture, people in different contexts will see
different colours (because the white balance in your brain gets thrown off).
It is the same with political neutrality. The XSF is not "neutral gray".
Neutral gray, like neutral white, is an artificial construct which does not
stably exist. The XSF is some different shade, but because of your context, it
*looks* neutral gray to you [^2].
We accommodate military use (another highly "politically charged" topic) of
our products: see for example XEP-0365, which specifies the use of XMPP over
some NATO communication standard. This looks like neutral gray only if you
live in or are affiliated with NATO countries and are not opposed to NATO or
military in general.
We have not intervened when people advocated for just ignoring marginalized
groups in client development. This looks neutral gray only if you are not
marginalized.
Looking at the names (and I know that that is a really fuzzy way to look at
things, but as a first order approximation it'll have to do) in our
membership, it's almost exclusively US or EU. This looks neutral gray only if
you are from the US or EU.
I haven't been participating in summit recently, but when I did, it was almost
all male-looking white people. This looks neutral gray only if you are a white
male.
On Freitag, 26. April 2024 13:01:12 CEST JC Brand
wrote:
You're basically advocating for so-called positive discrimination (aka
affirmative action), which is a political position advocated for by
certain political groupings.
I'm on record from previous discussions in saying that I don't think a
supposedly neutral standards organization should be instrumentalized for
the furtherance of political programmes. 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.
They are though, or should be anyway. People from marginalized groups are
just that, marginalized. We as an organisation should do the extra effort
to support individuals from these groups in order to allow them to be
safe in our spaces, to live up to their potential and what they'd like to
achieve and contribute. At the end of the day, the tiniest minority is the
individual, and
requiring that we treat each individual with respect and courtesy is
enough, without having to refer to specific (sometimes politically
charged) categories.
Could you clarify "sometimes politically charged"? I don't think this benefits the
organization or aids in the furtherance of standards development.
I disagree. If standards are supposed to work for a wide variety of people, we
as a standards organisation need to have representatives from a wide variety
of people. This is currently clearly not the case.
Of course, one may say that the bits on the wire don't care, and that is
certainly true. But it matters what we make these bits do, and what these bits
are capable of doing. For example, there is no way in XMPP to express your
pronouns, or to do so selectively to a subset of your contacts. This is a very
real use case of real people out there. Nobody has brought this use case up,
and we need to ask ourselves why that is.
This hinders growing the protocol, if growth is what you care about, and it
hinders making it a viable alternative for real people to use.
Please also consider reading the FAQ of that other CoC I linked earlier:
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq/
Now please mind that I'm not advocating to become neutral gray. As I pointed
out, I don't believe that neutral gray exists. Instead, we as an organisation
need to be come conscious about that and we need to figure out which values we
do care about, because not choosing any is also a choice (and I think a
particularly bad one).
This CoC amendment is a step in that direction: I propose that we consciously
adopt human diversity as one of our values.
kind regards,
Jonas
[^1]: In non-natural lighting, green/pink is the other axis it controls.
[^2]: And honestly? I get that. It has taken me years (and one really ugly
incident) to realize this from the first time someone pointed this
out to me. It is *hard* to step out of your own baked-in white
balance.
29 Apr
29 Apr
1:54 a.m.
Hi Jonas
On 2024/04/27 10:36, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
You
make an awful lot of assumptions about me Jonas.
Anybody in the world can submit
a XEP. We don't exclude anybody based on
any personal characteristics.
Hello JC,
On Samstag, 27. April 2024 09:33:42 CEST JC Brand wrote:
You seem to interpret "neutral" to mean an objective and unbiased view
(i.e. picture) of the world.
That's not what I mean when I use the word neutral here. Instead, I mean
"not getting involved in".
The XSF is a technical standards organization, not an activist or
political organization. So it should stay neutral by not getting
involved in activism, political programmes and attempts at social
engineering.
Seen in that light, the analogy regarding photography is largely irrelevant.
On 2024/04/26 15:35, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
"supposedly" is the key word
here.
Neutrality does not exist. Let me paint you a picture (pun intended). In
photography, an important parameter when baking a picture into something which
can be viewed on screen is the so-called White Balance. Most of the time, it
controls the shift between red and blue in a picture [^1]. White balance is
normally configured by using a piece of plastic which is known to be "neutral
grey" and asking the picture processor to calibrate on that. It will then
shift the tint of the picture so that the sensor values in the area of the
neutral grey card get converted to 50% gray in RGB.
The same thing happens in brains, by the way. The (maybe) white wall in your
room is by no means emitting "white" light in your direction: it is reflecting
whichever colour your room lighting currently has, which is very unlikely to
be what some standards committee has defined as neutral white.
Now, does anyone remember that dress picture from a couple years back, which
divided the internet on whether the dress was blue or golden? That was
basically a white balance issue: without a point of reference for the brain to
identify "gray" in the picture, people in different contexts will see
different colours (because the white balance in your brain gets thrown off).
It is the same with political neutrality. The XSF is not "neutral gray".
Neutral gray, like neutral white, is an artificial construct which does not
stably exist. The XSF is some different shade, but because of your context, it
*looks* neutral gray to you [^2]. On Freitag, 26. April 2024 13:01:12 CEST JC Brand
wrote:
You're basically advocating for so-called positive
discrimination (aka
affirmative action), which is a political position advocated for by
certain political groupings.
I'm on record from previous discussions in saying that I don't think a
supposedly neutral standards organization should be instrumentalized for
the furtherance of political programmes. 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.
They are though, or
should be anyway. People from marginalized groups are
just that, marginalized. We as an organisation should do the extra effort
to support individuals from these groups in order to allow them to be
safe in our spaces, to live up to their potential and what they'd like to
achieve and contribute. We accommodate military use (another highly
"politically charged" topic) of
our products: see for example XEP-0365, which specifies the use of XMPP over
some NATO communication standard.
It's an open standard. If you wanted to exclude certain groups of people
from using and extending it, it would no longer be an open standard.
There's nothing in our bylaws or in any XEP that says you need to
support Nato or pay deference to it.
In any case, I would not be surprised if the Russian military was also
using XMPP on the battlefield.
This looks like neutral gray only if you live in or
are affiliated with NATO countries and are not opposed to NATO or
military in general.
I don't live in a Nato country and believe there's lots to criticize
about it, but both those facts are irrelevant to the XSF's mission.
There are
politically contentious topics surrounding what constitutes
marginalized identities and how one (and society) should go about
accommodating them.
We're running the risk if introducing these politically divisive topics
into the XSF, thereby politicizing the organization which will likely
introduce the same divisiveness, acrimony and bitterness that
characterizes political debates.
Oh, the division and bitterness is there. You
currently just have the "luxury"
to not see it, because the people who are divided away and get bitter are not
joining and/or have left the XSF (yes, this is happening / has happened).
[I said "you", instead of "we", above, because I in fact do see the
division
and bitterness. It takes place outside the XSF spaces for obvious reasons.] I don't
think this benefits the
organization or aids in the furtherance of standards development.
I disagree. If
standards are supposed to work for a wide variety of people, we
as a standards organisation need to have representatives from a wide variety
of people. This is currently clearly not the case. Of course, one may say that the bits on the wire
don't care, and that is
certainly true. But it matters what we make these bits do, and what these bits
are capable of doing. For example, there is no way in XMPP to express your
pronouns, or to do so selectively to a subset of your contacts. This is a very
real use case of real people out there. Nobody has brought this use case up,
and we need to ask ourselves why that is.
Maybe because other people have other
priorities?
If you consider this very important, you're welcome to bring it up for
discussion and/or create a XEP for it.
This hinders growing the protocol, if growth is what
you care about, and it
hinders making it a viable alternative for real people to use.
I personally doubt
that support for selectively publishing your pronouns
is what's really hindering protocol growth, but the beauty of an open
and extensible standard is that anyone can use and extend it as they see
fit and we don't all have to agree on the priorities.
Please also consider reading the FAQ of that other CoC
I linked earlier:
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq/
I'm aware of the contributor covenant
and have read it multiple times
before.
I just re-read the FAQ and I think it's largely reasonable.
Now please mind that I'm not advocating to become
neutral gray. As I pointed
out, I don't believe that neutral gray exists. Instead, we as an organisation
need to be come conscious about that and we need to figure out which values we
do care about, because not choosing any is also a choice (and I think a
particularly bad one).
This CoC amendment is a step in that direction: I propose that we consciously
adopt human diversity as one of our values.
I don't think we disagree that much with one another with regards to
values. Diverse opinions are helpful and can result in better standards.
I just don't think the XSF should be engaging in political activism and
social engineering,
Regards
JC
1:41 a.m.
New subject: Extending the XSF Community Code of Conduct (XEP-0458)
Hi Jonas,
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.
While I understand where this is coming from, I think the text as-is is
problematic. It seems a Bad Thing to require everyone in XSF venues to
stop a discussion when one person wants it to stop...
...and I'm not interested in hearing anyone disagree with me, so I don't
want people to discuss this topic further.
/K
1:53 a.m.
New subject: Extending the XSF Community Code of Conduct (XEP-0458)
Hi Jonas,
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.
While I understand where this is coming from, I think the text as-is is problematic. It
seems a Bad Thing to require everyone in XSF venues to stop a discussion when one person
wants it to stop...
...and I'm not interested in hearing anyone disagree with me, so I don't want
people to discuss this topic further.
/K
3:30 a.m.
On Montag, 29. April 2024 09:41:00 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll reply to this particular point (which Dave
also brought up) when I look through and reply to Dave's email in more detail.
kind regards,
Jonas
Hi Jonas,
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.
While I understand where this is coming from, I think the text as-is is
problematic. It seems a Bad Thing to require everyone in XSF venues to
stop a discussion when one person wants it to stop...
...and I'm not interested in hearing anyone disagree with me, so I don't
want people to discuss this topic further. 
3:18 a.m.
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:
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.
- 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Dave.
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.
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.
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/
9
days inactive
13
days old
14 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dan Caseley -
Dave Cridland -
JC Brand -
Jonas Schäfer -
Kevin Smith -
Peter Saint-Andre