Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
TLDR: Words have meanings and I find it deeply offensive when one group tries to hijack them for their own ends. This entire discussion makes me less comfortable with participating in Debian.
Didn't have the energy to write the long version.
Scott K
On December 11, 2019 3:50:06 PM UTC, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
>TL;DR: Treating people with respect is hard and very contextual.
>Choosing to change how you talk about something to make people more
>comfortable doesn't always mean you were obligated to make that change.
>Sometimes you're just promoting connection.
>
>>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
>
>Scott> On November 27, 2019 2:54:04 PM UTC, Simon McVittie
><smcv@debian.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
> >>> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> >>> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution
> >>> prior to it being subject to a plebiscite?
> >>
> >> Thank you for raising this, Chris.
> >>
> >> I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of
> >> "init diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past
> >> because I couldn't articulate clearly why I felt that it was a
> >> problem. Since it's now on-topic, here's my best attempt at
> >>
> >> I would hate to see diversity and inclusion of people (the
> >> meaning of the word used in the name of the Diversity Team)
> >> harmed by creating a perception that the term "diversity" has
> >> been devalued by stretching it to encompass technical
> >> preferences, because I think diversity and inclusion of people is
> >> much too important to let that happen.
>
> Scott> I am deeply saddened by this message. I think it is entirely
> Scott> misguided, but I fail to come up with a way to explain it
> Scott> that is no one will think violates our code of conduct. It's
> Scott> things like this that are causing me to start to view it as a
> Scott> mistake.
>
>Scott, let me take a crack, because I too was deeply conflicted by that
>message, especially as I think about the CoC.
>
>First, there's a sense in which I agree with removing the term
>diversity.
>It's clear that Simon's message represents a position that resonates
>with a number of participants in the discussion.
>Those people are in effect saying "We'd feel more welcome in this
>discussion if you'd change the term. Also, it might make it more
>likely
>your preferred option is selected."
>
>The people using the term diversity thought about it and decided that
>they did want to be more welcoming and probably even that they agreed
>with the political analysis.
>So they proposed changing the term.
>That's great.
>The CoC encourages us to listen, and to show respect for others.
>And I think considering changing the framing of the discussion to
>include people is a great thing to do.
>The emphasis is on *considering* (and of course when you consider and
>conclude it is a good idea, doing).
>
>So in this instance, based on what we saw in the discussion, I think
>the
>term change is great.
>
>We've seen a trend that there are a number of people who are
>uncomfortable using concepts like diversity, war, censorship, and free
>speech that are globally loaded as part of analogies in a Debian and
>free software context.
>As I understand it, the CoC says we should consider these needs.
>
>But others actually value those analogies. No, Debian is not a
>government. Moderating content we distribute is not the same as
>government censorship. And yet, Debian has power in the world. And
>some of those analogies have power because members of our community
>would like to see Debian as a force for freedom; they would like to
>reflect values both globally and locally. And so they find using the
>same words powerful in both contexts. We exclude them by denying them
>their analogies; that has a cost. That kind of exclusion can be
>disrespectful.
>
>It's a balance.
>Just because following the principles in the CoC, we change our
>terminology does not mean that was the only reasonable thing to do.
>In some situations, we also could have been respectful by acknowledging
>the concern, considering it, understanding why we make a choice that
>makes some uncomfortable, and continuing to make that choice. "Hey,
>we're not trying to be jerks by talking about freedom of speech. We
>hear and acknowledge the difference you're pointing at, but this
>analogy allows us to celebrate something that is important to us."
>
>There are limits. If you're in a one-on-one conversation and I've
>pointed out that I find your termonology uncomfortable, you're probably
>being disrespectful if you don't shift in that conversation.
>
>I might well be being disrespectful if I keep asking you to change your
>terminology in a setting where people value it.
>
>If you are using the terminology to provoke and escalate conflict
>rather
>than to call out something you find good, then we might well need to
>change the terminology even if you wish we didn't. As an example,
>because of some of the specific examples, and the other attacks,
>talking
>about things in terms of censorship on debian-project early this year
>*was* problematic.
>
>In contrast, I think that you can talk about weboob in terms of
>censorship if you acknowledge there is a difference between Debian and
>a
>government in that instance and acknowledge there are competing views
>on
>whether it is censorship.
>
>
>--Sam
Reply to: