On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:58:02AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> > Seems like the changes never made it to the website afterwards ...
> Which seems to be a recurring issue.
> Enrico, would you be able & willing to drive this?
Neither able (for lack of knowledge of the debconf orga structure) nor
willing (for lack of time and general overcommittment), sorry.
I went as far as to propose wording changes in my previous emails. I'll
repeat it here, reviewing it and merging with the current content, but
I will not try to work out the process of getting it from here to
http://debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml:
* Be inclusive
By default, all presentation material should be suitable for people
aged 12 and above. If you think that some people may have a problem
with your talk, please state it explicitly in the submission notes,
so that it can be taken into account while scheduling it, introducing
it, and broadcasting it. If you feel unsure, please contact the
DebConf Talks Team at <email>.
This is limited to presentations and presentation material: personal
interaction at the conference should just be about common sense,
consensuality, and being excellent to each other.
Rationales:
I explicitly replaced the list of "may not contain" with a blanket
statement of "some people may have a problem with", similarly to what
seems to work well in the Diversity Statement. Having a list, in my
opinion, would just open a can of worms of arguing about whether bits of
the list are suitable or not[1].
The idea is that referring to "some people" means that one doesn't have
to make a judgement on whether something is *generally* suitable[2], but
one should only figure if someone can be possibly upset by it, and then
apply common sense[3].
Common sense can also mean deciding that "if someone is upset by this,
sucks to be them". I imagine that thinking about people that can be upset by
DevOps practices or by gender equality, the Talk Team would decide
"sucks to be them", and that this is the kind of editorial decisions
that the team is responsible for, and should be free to make. I guess
that the point is to ask speakers not to make such decisions *for*
the talk team.
Enrico
[1] I'll be the first to open the can of worms: I get very rapidly angry
at the idea that consensual sexual imagery can be unsuitable for any
audience of any age, so let's just not go there.
[2] I believe that discussion on the absolute truth of suitability of
whatever content regardless of context and audience is a meaningless
exercise.
[3] Give me a topic, and I'll find you one person that can be upset by
it. Off the top of my head I already have examples for topics such
as math, computer programming, and kittens.
--
GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature