Re: Censorship in Debian
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello Russ, Scott,
> >
> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
> > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
> > >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like
> > >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its
> > > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not*
> > > political. But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what
> > > "political" means. (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow
> > > definition.)
> >
> > I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is the
> > idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in order
> > to participate?
> >
> > Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very different
> > political positions generate reasons to support its spread. Economic
> > libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good --
> > but different -- reasons to support Free Software.
> >
> > For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free Software
> > projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite different
> > reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of
> > freedom in software.
> >
> > Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that
> > participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political
> > position that has more in common with other participants than simply the
> > property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free Software?
> >
> > (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be
> > valid. I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is coming
> > from any better.)
>
> I think that's pretty close to it.
>
> Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a good
> thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing to
> take). I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to enable
> individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always so caring,
> entities be they government or corporate.
>
> I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad speech is
> almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost).
>
> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized
> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but I
> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the
> CoC). Not everyone can be accommodated. There's broad agreement that someone
> who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any definition)
> isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to how far
> the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns without it
> getting ridiculous.
I agree with much of this.
[...]
> All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the Diversity
> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be
> taken in the future.
I'm wondering what makes you say that, though. Can you clarify?
I think the code of conduct is mostly a "try to be excellent to each
other" kind of statement, with an "or else" rider at the end. That rider
is pretty vague (on purpose). It was written in that way precisely
because I agree with you that it's worth working on making people who
feel they are being marginalized feel welcome; and the consequences are
there precisely because there are indeed limits.
What am I missing?
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Reply to: