On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:19:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> now in the PlanetDebian wiki page added with the above revision is, if
> true, quite significant. If that is Planet Debian policy, I'll switch my
> aggregation feed for planet.debian.org over to only posts I explicitly tag
> with Debian, which will mean removing nearly all of my posts.
[...]
> (I'm also pretty mystified about the application of Debconf's code of
> conduct to Planet Debian, if that is indeed something being considered. I
> would treat those very differently; content that's acceptable as words on
> the Internet may be entirely out of line in an environment where children
> are physically present, and I would always check the audience and
> environment before discussing sexuality in person at a conference.
> On-line communication is far different because there's no way to check the
> audience; once it's on-line, anyone on the Internet may be reading it.)
I fully agree. My understanding is that shirish was pointed to several
resources including the DebConf CoC when his feed was removed from
Planed Debian, and as a consequence he added the link to the
PlanetDebian wiki, for the benefit of others who could be in a similar
position.
I would guess that the link was sent with good intentions as a possibly
useful resource, rather than as a policy to follow. I am afraid that
this could result in the DebConf CoC accidentally becoming policy for
Planet Debian, and I'm glad shirish raised the issue explicitly.
My blog also has content that some might not find appropriate for 12
year olds (mostly here http://www.enricozini.org/tags/life/) and the
English posts of it generally end up in Planet Debian.
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:58:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think "safe for work" is a much easier-to-apply and less-fraught policy
> than "safe for anyone over the age of 12." In particular, "safe for work"
> emphasizes the problems with open offices, easily-seen screens, and people
> reading over your shoulder, and therefore correctly emphasizes the
> problems with *visual* content.
Indeed. I would remove the reference to the DebConf CoC from the Planet
Debian wiki page, and replace it with some pointer about trying to make
posts safe for work. I'd like it not to be about what topics one talks
about, but rather about how to pay attention when chosing very visible
parts like titles or images.
> Everyone posts some of that from time to time, and some of it isn't a big
> deal. I've certainly posted some of it, and no one really minds. But I
> think the key bit is *occasionally*. As part of a mix of a variety of
> other content, I don't think anyone is going to object, but if your blog
> is *mostly* extended philosophical musings, particularly long ones
> (because again Planet Debian expands everything in-line), I'm not horribly
> surprised that a few people might start complaining. Whether those
> complaints should warrant a change is kind of a hard question, and I'm not
> quite sure what to feel (I really value the diversity of human experience
> in the project), but you might want to consider whether there are some
> merits to dialing it back a bit, at least in the content you syndicate to
> Planet Debian.
I personally skip most of shirish' posts because I usaully don't have
the energy to read them. When I do have the energy to read them, I tend
to find them between interesting and adorable, and that included the
article in question.
I agree with the suggestiong of dialing it back a bit from a content
optimization point of view ("if you want to please your audience the
most, you could…"), and I would disagree with that suggestion if it came
from a policy point of view ("do this or your feed will get removed").
There are many more posts I regularly skip[1], but I wouldn't ask for
their feeds to be removed from Planet Debian. At most, I would rant
about them to a close circle of friends, in those rare cases when we'd
have nothing better to talk about.
I'd like to see shirish' feed being syndicated again in Planet Debian,
and I understand he'd like to make sure he's not doing harm with his
posts.
I know people complained about that post, but I don't know anything else
about their complaint: were they generically policing? Did they get into
trouble? Did they get tired of shirish' posts? Did they get triggered
and had a really bad day coping with past traumas? I also don't think I
should know, as I don't think there's value in exposing complaints to
public scrutiny.
I don't see any use in pattern matching shirish' post against bullet
points in a Code of Conduct. We could read everything carefully and
argue whether each paragraph complied or not with each point, and in so
doing we would completely ignore the existance of a person who might
have been hurt, and how to really not get them hurt again.
Also, almost any post can be NSFW for some values of Work. For example,
I know there are workplaces where talking about Free Software would not
be safe. So there needs to be some kind of political judgement made
about when to say "if Planet is usafe for your workplace, it's our
problem" and when to say "if Planet is usafe for your workplace, it's
your problem", and I don't think a policy could cover enough corner
cases to be the place where such choices are made.
Rather than have policies, I'd like to have guidelines, and an editorial
team who's trusted and empowered to make calls on a case by case basis.
Who can say "we temporarily removed your feed because post X caused Y,
can you remove the post from the feed, or change it so that it doesn't
cause Y?" or "no, your feed can't be on Planet Debian, full stop". And
if the team at some point loses the trust of the project, we look for a
new team.
Enrico
[1]: I don't really care about each and every single release of GNU R
libraries or of Gammu, or about the lists of last month's Free Software
activities of a self-selected group of people. But then I avidly read
nageru's news and intricate development details even though I know I'll
never use it myself. Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît
point.
--
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature