[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 Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

Steve, I'm writing to confirm understanding of our disagreement and to
acknowledge the point you made and explain why it is not persuasive to
me.  I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind, simply letting
you know I've considered what you have to say, and making sure
everything is out on the table as we work toward consensus.

    Steve> If one has made statements outside of Debian demonstrating
    Steve> that they hold to an ideology that denies the dignity of
    Steve> other members of the project, unless those statements have
    Steve> been *recanted*, the existence of those statements has a
    Steve> chilling effect on working with others within the project
    Steve> *per se*.  It is not enough to ask that someone *pretend* to
    Steve> respect other members of the project while working within the
    Steve> project, if their outside behavior shows that they don't
    Steve> actually respect those other members of the project.

Steve, as I expected, this is our disagreement.

I hear the issue you are talking about, and  broadly agree that would
generally be the case.

However, excluding someone because of the ideas they have supported is a
really huge step, and I think that there is a slippery slope involved.

In practice I expect that my preferred outcome would produce the same
results as yours.
Because in practice, I expect when we asked someone about the extreme
ideas they supported outside of Debian, we would generally find they
didn't have a good answer for how they would meet our standards within
Debian.

It only matters if someone comes up with the good enough answer that
we'd consider them.  To me, taking the step you propose of actually
excluding someone because of ideologies they support is a big step.  I'd
rather not do that if lesser steps like excluding someone because they
cannot explain how they would work constructively in uor community work.

I guess If someone had an answer to that question, I'd rather listen to
that answer and make up my mind (or have whoever is delegated at the
time do so).
I cannot see such an answer now, but again and again I find that my
imagination is insufficient to reality.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: