Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 2014-09-04 01:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with
>>> them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so
>>> little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made.
>>
>> This thread is not about whether we care about people being offensive
>> (which, btw, is terribly subjective). This thread is about whether the CoC
>> should be used to enforce people *not* being offensive.
>>
>> And that is a very slippery slope with no bottom in sight.
>
> Then we should strip language out of the CoC about being
> respectful to people and making attendees feel welcome, to avoid
> giving a false impression that those things are actually important and
> shall be enforced.
This hyperbole is not productive; neither is the hyperbole on the other
side of this discussion (mostly when this thread started).
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Ian's position, as
Russ observed, he phrased his issues in the form of general questions
that probably merit discussion regardless of whether they were motivated
by a specific incident or not.
Just to be clear: my subjective impression is that the specific incident
wasn't one, whatever offense their might have been was blown way, *way*
out of proportion, and merely fretting over the past is a waste of time.
In fact, my subjective impression (especially after follow-up
discussions with other attendees) is that some people were upset purely
because of the opinions themselves, and I believe they would have been
just as upset had they been articulated in a 100% CoC-compliant manner
(by that, I'm not admitting the CoC was violated).
But that is all irrelevant, as the specific incident is not on the table
here. The questions raised by Ian in his initial mail would have been
just as valid if he had posted them a month before DebConf14, and they
will be just as valid at DebConf15. He took care to be completely
objective (hence the reason why we are still talking about a specific
event instead of naming it), so I don't see why all these inflammatory
remarks (back and forth) are necessary.
It should be obvious that I completely disagree with Ian's view on the
specific incident, but despite that I agree with him that some of the
questions he presented are important and should be addressed.
Christian
Reply to: