Re: What does it mean to be inclusive
Sam Hartman wrote:
> I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive. However, for me that means something different than you say in your second sentence. To me that means we've committed to being open to as large a cross section of people--as diverse a cross section of people as possible.
> The difference in how we interpret things is whether we're focused on
the individual or the aggregate affect.
It seems indeed that we may have a different concept of inclusion. For
me, you aren't really being inclusive if you aren't welcoming all
people, not just those who increase a cross section. And you aren't
really welcoming a group if you aren't welcoming every individual
member of that group.
That doesn't mean that Debian should be forced to keep people who
misbehave (don't respect the CoC) or don't align with its core mission
(don't respect the Social Contract). As I see it, that is a completely
different issue.
But this is deviating from the point that I was trying to make, that
is, that Debian can't use the "we are a private group" argument as a
waiver from the (moral, if not legal) obligation to treat people
fairly (and I read your original message as acknowledging the need for
fair treatment, so I thought we were on the same side). So forgive me
if I don't want to go further on this subthread.
Gerardo
Reply to: