[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board]

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:

    Steve> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:30:21PM +0000, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
    Steve> Umm. Our diversity statement and CoC define agreed
    Steve> expectations of behaviour and communication within the
    Steve> project; people espousing fascist ideologies are surely not
    Steve> going to fit those standards. Do you somehow think they're
    Steve> compatible?

In general, no, probably not.
But compared to judging which ideologies are automatic bans and which we
 will tolerate, focusing on whether someone can work
 consistently with the CoC and the diversity statement seems easier to
 evaluate and to defend.
I don't want to see us developing and debating (even within delegated
teams) a set of organizations we'll have no part of.
I'd rather see us focusing on whether members of our community follow
standards such as the CoC, diversity statement etc.
Some members of our community have claimed that others were Nazis or
fascist in ways that were not obvious to me.

I wrote the following remarks earlier today and decided not to send them
because I was hoping this discussion would die down.  It hasn't, so
here's my attempt to balance focusing on creating a welcoming community
while respecting political freedom of our members.
I understand I'm disagreeing with somemembers of the project.
I find that what Jonathan said today is too far for me.
But I find that the practical difference between what Jonathan advocates
and what I'd be comfortable with is small to non-existent.
I'm sharing this in the hopes that others can find middle grounds in
what I say.

First, to define extreme views.
I'd like to focus on views that deny the dignity of some, or that treat
some people as lesser than others.

My personal desire for the project would be to approach extreme views
that  are incompatible with treating everyone with dignity and humanity
as follows:

1) As Russ said, and I agree, we should not police thoughts.  What stays
inside your own head is none of our business.

2) If your statements (even outside of Debian) commit you to a path that
denies dignity, it's entirely reasonable for us to talk to you about
whether you'll be able to act in accordance with the CoC and diversity
Please convince us that you will be able to treat everyone in Debian
with dignity consistent with how we view dignity; convince us that your
actions in Debian will create a welcoming community and treat all our
members with respect.
If you can answer that question,  then we should hold you to that
answer.  If your answer is good, I don't think statements outside of
Debian should get in the way of your participation beyond raising the
discussion of how you will meet our community standards within Debian.
I do think if you affiliate yourself with an extreme ideology in your
statements outside Debian, it's reasonable for us to be highly skeptical
and to ask you to show us how it's going to work.

I understand some people in the project disagree with me and would like
to kick people out for their statements outside of Debian.
That's just further than I can go right now.

3) going around within Debian saying you are a political extremest
following a party that does not treat everyone with dignity is likely to
be incompatible with the CoC in and of itself.
It might depend on the context, but most contexts I can see would
reasonably make the classes of people your extreme ideology considers
lesser feel unwelcome.

4) Actions, especially actions within Debian that are inconsistent with
treating everyone with dignity need to be taken seriously.  If you have claimed
affiliation with a group that advocates such actions, I think it makes
it even more serious.

I think the practical effect of the above is that if you're acting as a
fascist , you won't be welcome here.
I'd prefer to make that determination based on actions rather than


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: