Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
Hello,
I really tried to stay away from this conversation, but the email I'm
replying to was written as leader@, and it confuses me, so I want to
make sure I understand:
On 2019-12-18 22:28:51, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> TL;DR: Can we please be done with this discussion soonest?
>
> >>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> writes:
>
> Roberto> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 02:36:41PM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >> Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > I had thought that there was room for a dissenting opinion, but
> >> > clearly there isn't.
> >>
> >> You can think what you like - the requirement is that you treat
> >> people in Debian with respect,
>
> Roberto> Such a requirement, if it does in fact exist, is certainly
> Roberto> not equally applied.
>
> It does exist: point one of the Debian code of conduct.
>
> It's true that it is not applied equally.
> As the Code of Conduct states,"a community in which people feel
> threatened is not a healthy community."
>
> In the diversity statement we've said that we welcome people regardless
> of how they identify themselves. So, yes,we do treat things that are
> likely to cause people to feel threatened rather than welcomed based on
> their identity as bigger deals than perhaps some other things.
Can you please expan on this? Is there a hidden stack ranking between
the diversity statement and (parts of?) the CoC?
My concern is this "hidden" assumption that identity trumps other
(unnamed) things (which ones?). The hidden part, not the stack ranking.
For someone who is neither native speaking nor very good at reading
people, can we please stop having implicit assumption about behaviour,
and be explicit about them?
I just realised reading this that a lot of my confusion in various
threads comes from this between-the-lines reading of the CoC.
I also wonder why the diversity statement is not integrated into the CoC
directly - maybe, for example, as an extension of (1) Be respectful;
right now (1) seems to imply just polite language, but not respecting
other people's views. That would make it simpler and would have
prevented probably this entire thread.
iustin
Reply to: