Re: Censorship in Debian
On January 6, 2019 12:29:26 PM UTC, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > Hello Russ, Scott,
>> >
>> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
>> > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond
>the core
>> > >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect).
> I like
>> > >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything.
>> > >
>> > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political
>project at its
>> > > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever
>been *not*
>> > > political. But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what
>> > > "political" means. (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably
>narrow
>> > > definition.)
>> >
>> > I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is
>the
>> > idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in
>order
>> > to participate?
>> >
>> > Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very
>different
>> > political positions generate reasons to support its spread.
>Economic
>> > libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good
>--
>> > but different -- reasons to support Free Software.
>> >
>> > For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free
>Software
>> > projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite
>different
>> > reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of
>> > freedom in software.
>> >
>> > Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that
>> > participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political
>> > position that has more in common with other participants than
>simply the
>> > property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free
>Software?
>> >
>> > (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be
>> > valid. I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is
>coming
>> > from any better.)
>>
>> I think that's pretty close to it.
>>
>> Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a
>good
>> thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing
>to
>> take). I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to
>enable
>> individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always
>so caring,
>> entities be they government or corporate.
>>
>> I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad
>speech is
>> almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost).
>>
>> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been
>marginalized
>> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not
>marginalized, but I
>> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern
>relative to the
>> CoC). Not everyone can be accommodated. There's broad agreement
>that someone
>> who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any
>definition)
>> isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to
>how far
>> the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns
>without it
>> getting ridiculous.
>
>I agree with much of this.
>
>[...]
>> All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the
>Diversity
>> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it
>will be
>> taken in the future.
>
>I'm wondering what makes you say that, though. Can you clarify?
>
>I think the code of conduct is mostly a "try to be excellent to each
>other" kind of statement, with an "or else" rider at the end. That
>rider
>is pretty vague (on purpose). It was written in that way precisely
>because I agree with you that it's worth working on making people who
>feel they are being marginalized feel welcome; and the consequences are
>there precisely because there are indeed limits.
>
>What am I missing?
Steve's (vorlon) response was pretty close to the mark.
I understand the claim he makes about engage constructively being a brake on the kinds of problems I fear. I'm not entirely convinced though.
In any disagreement there is room for asshattery on both sides of the discussion. If one is evaluating if someone is engaged in harassing behavior, I think it's much easier to see it in someone you disagree with than someone you fundamentally agree with.
It's my assumption that people who volunteer for the unpleasant work of things like the anti-harrassment team do so because they believe that there's significant problems in the project with harassment. As a result, I would anticipate that there's a natural tendency to be more likely to find extreme behavior unreasonable from an alleged harasser than from the reverse.
Note that this fear is not specific to any recent events or current AH team members. I think there's a selection bias inherent in the structure. Some might argue that any such selection bias is minor in the scheme of other biases involved. They might be right, but that doesn't mean I don't worry about it.
Scott K
Reply to: