Hi, first of all let me say a *big thank you* for who took a moment (or more) to think about this proposal, criticizing the form of it, reviewing it, sending patches and fixes, asking for clarifications or providing them. And not only in this thread but also in IRC and via private mails. Even if bikeshedding is sometimes really annoying, this is the right way to reach a consensus on a such important document and transform it from a copy-pasted template to *our* diversity statement. :) Trying to summarize, these are IMHO the most important points emerged: * (1)long list vs (2)one-line statement ** changes proposed for (1): - s/race// (Lunar^) - s/religions/religious belief or disbelief/ (dkg) - technical ability vs skillset and field of expertise (Ian, Russ, Enrico) - "neurotype" is not a medical/scientific accepted concept, so it'd better to not put it beside "genotype" or "fenotype" which are. (Charles) - +sex (Charles) Tbh, I prefer (1), I find it more insipiring and moving. And Kevin is illuminating when he says: On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:40:40 Kevin Mark wrote: > > So a statement should explicitly > list a good mix of what we are not getting, and by 'good mix' I dont mean > exhaustive. Because if you have a half-way decent one, it will lend > itself to the idea that you are just darn happy to include other > less-well-included folks. A not exhaustive list means exactly that: here's a list of people who usually feel/are - historically - discriminated, there could be other way of discriminating on grounds of other criteria, and we will not accept them, as well as we don't accept the most-common-kinds-of-discrimination explicitly listed. The most-common-kinds-of-discrimination (i.e. the ones put on the list) are just examples. * isn't better a GR to give this statement more force/legitimation? I'd prefer one, yes. But it's also true that in the next months people will work hard for the upcoming freeze and it seems a waste of time to ask them to vote when we can reach a consensus via mailing list. If we can't reach a consensus here, I will propose a GR about it. So, attached the new text. It's still the "list" version, including fixes proposed. I've also added the paragraph proposed by Russ because - even if he said otherwise - it seems perfect to me. But if the choice will be between a one-line statement or no statement, I'll choose the first. :) Cheers, Francesca -- "Nostra patria è il mondo intero e nostra legge è la libertà ed un pensiero ribelle in cor ci sta." P.Gori
The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. We are committed to being a community that everyone feels good about joining. Although we may not be able to satisfy everyone, we will always work to treat everyone well. Whenever any participant has made a mistake, we expect them to take responsibility for it. If someone has been harmed or offended, it is our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, and do our best to right the wrong. We also expect people to be constructive members of the community. Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honour diversity in age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity or expression, language, national origin, phenotype, political beliefs, sex, profession, neurotype, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, subculture, skillset and field of expertise. We welcome contributions from everyone within their areas of particular expertise. While much of the work of the Project is technical in nature, we will value and encourage contributions to the Project from those with expertise in non-technical areas and welcome such contributors as part of our community. Ideas and wording for this statement were based on diversity statements from the Ubuntu community <http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/diversity>, the Python community <http://www.python.org/community/diversity> and Dreamwidth Studios <http://www.dreamwidth.org/legal/diversity>. This document is usable under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA license.
Description: Digital signature