Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 2014-09-04 07:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04 2014, Christian Kastner wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> Err. It is not meant to be hyperbole. But nice try being
> dismissive. Kudos.
What? Steve made an observation about the nature of this discussion and
then pointed out that there is a risk associated with some of the
possible conclusions.
You could have simply argued that to you, considering the "slippery
slope" was a risk worth taking. I would have shared your opinion. But
instead, you went ahead with an inflammatory tone, even expressly
suggesting that being respectful was generally unimportant. That was
entirely unproductive.
There is an obvious disagreement as to what is respectable behavior and
what not. Steve was explicit about this ("which, btw, is terribly
subjective"). It would have been much more helpful if you had argued
your point here instead of insinuating others do not care about respect.
> The CoC talks about:
> *) All attendees are expected to treat all people and facilities with
> respect and help create a welcoming environment.
I strongly believe that CoCs are a good thing, but they have to be
applied within reason. If "creating a welcoming environment" means that
I am not allowed to criticize anyone, or voice my (perhaps unpopular)
opinion when *I am expressly asked* for it, then we are far away from
being reasonable, and we are better off without CoCs.
> *) We ask all our members, speakers, volunteers, attendees and guests
> to adopt these principles.
> *) Sometimes this means we need to work harder to ensure we're creating
> an environment of trust and respect where all who come to participate
> feel comfortable and included.
> *) Respect yourself, and respect others. Be courteous to those around
> you.
> *) We ask everyone to be aware that we will not tolerate intimidation,
> harassment, or any abusive, discriminatory or derogatory behavior by
> anyone at any Debian event or in related online media.
>
>
> If we are not going to enforce these principles, for they are
> slippery slopes, we should indeed take them out of the CoC, so as to
> not misrepresent the nature of the experience people might have.
Your conclusion that a body of unenforceable rules is entirely
insignificant is wrong; there is a symbolic value that can be
significant (think "non-binding resolution").
Regardless, instead of being upset about others merely being cautionary
about enforcement, I believe it would be far more productive to this
thread if you would simply elaborate when and how you would see an
enforcement as appropriate.
> It might make a difference to people as to what kind of CoC exosts
> (some scince fiction authors have stated on blogs that they shall not
> attent conferences without a CoC, so it is not unforseeable that
> people might make decisions based on the CoC. We should not have
> things in the CoC we have no intention of enforcing, slippery slope
> or otherwise.)
I would argue that in some cases, this is a consequence of the symbolic
effect of the CoCs and not a fear of the actual enforcement.
Reply to: