On 05/02/2014 01:44 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this should be part of a > CoC. If we accept that the dual purpose of the CoC is to make people feel > welcome who would otherwise fear being subjected to abuse and to remind > people to be on their best behavior, does a "no swears" policy contribute to > this goal? I'm not sure that it does, but I'm also not sure it's > problematic to include. As a by-now-almost-native new yorker, i have a fouler mouth by default than more civilized people. I do try to tone down the swearing when i'm "on stage" as Steve puts it, but sometimes the "bad" words just fuckin' slip out. To my mind, swearing that abuses people is a different thing than the vast majority of cadence-driven swearing that i hear daily. And it's pretty easy to distinguish between the two cases. I'm really glad to see a CoC for debconf, and i hope that the CoC makes it clear that abusive behavior will not be tolerated, and that people are expected to collectively create a welcoming and mutually-supportive environment for the benefit of each other and the project as a whole. But I'm not sure that a list of "dirty words you can't say" is useful there. --dkg PS as an aside, can we please please not adopt the terminology of "G"-ratings? Talks should not use gratuitous or abusive sexual imagery, but more importantly, they shouldn't be sexist (or racist, or homophobic, or discriminatory or alienating in any of the other depressingly-common ways) in general. The MPAA's rating system (which is where "G"-ratings come from) is heinously over-specified in some areas and heinously under-specified in others. I've seen egregiously sexist G-rated movies; and i've seen movies with an R rating that deal frankly with abuses of power that i think we as a project would want to engage with. Let's not take the MPAA rating system as a model.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature