Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf anti-harassment policy
Moray Allan dijo [Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:45:15PM +0000]:
> (...)
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Herman Robak <herman@skolelinux.no> wrote:
> > 1) I suggest that the scope and meaning of "harrassment" can be
> > kept simple and limited, and fairly neutral.
>
> I don't think that making a long list of things-not-to-harrass-about,
> given as an option in square brackets in the proposed text, is
> helpful. At best it will be incomplete, and it increases the chance
> of "legalistic" objections to any intervention while having the
> potential to cause offence to someone by what we've left out.
>
> > 2) Social rules are not quite like the rules of Debian packaging
> > policy manual. They are highly context sensitive, and have to
> > refer a lot to concepts of decency and common sense.
>
> Which are of course themselves concepts that are rather
> culture-dependent. Of course, people should stop their behaviour once
> others declare that they feel its harrassment, even if it wasn't
> intended that way, and at that point any difference in cultural
> assumptions becomes irrelevant.
there is a thing that comes to my attention - But you are the English
native speaker, not me. I feel "harassment" as a word closely linked
to sexual intentions. I feel we should have an anti-*disrepsect*
policy. There are many ways to hurt or insult a person we should
explicitly.
You mentioned religious topics - We will be in an (yes, you have
assured us, liberal and tolerant, but still) Muslim country. I know
many people living in countries with Christian majorities and mindsets
automatically view Muslims as stone-age barbarians. If we go this way,
we should also explicitly discourage looking down on the locals.
Respect goes in many dimensions. I do not think we can enumerate them
all, and I do not think we can state (or enforce) much beyond our best
intentions. But yes, I agree we should be explicit on opposing
anything that will make any attendee feel hurt or attacked.
Reply to: