Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC"):
> I think you reinforce my original point. In this case, the 'other
> side' isn't the proposer of the option, it's me.
>
> What I'm hearing is that the CoC isn't for people like me because
> you are completely dismissive of my discomfort.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I didn't support the use of a
different word here (ie, instead of "diversity") because I thought
using "diversity" in this way was a CoC violation. I don't read
anyone in this thread as asserting that "diversity" in Sam's proposal
title was a CoC violation or that the CoC was a reason for deprecating
that term in this context.
Rather I supported use of a different word because I didn't want to
have this dispute about init systems and software freedom mixed up
with some "culture wars" debate about personal pronouns or whatever.
Like it, sadly, now is. If we had avoided the use of the word
"diversity" originally in the original proposals (like I did in mine)
this whole thread of conversation would have been avoided.
I don't think the use of a different word made any of the options
weaker. If it did then there would have been a tradeoff: use a
stronger word, and risk distraction/derailing/whatever; vs. use weaker
language and avoid that risk. Since I thought the non-"diversity"
language was no weaker, I thought there wasn't a tradeoff there.
It seemed to me that changing it was a no-brainer no matter whether
you agree with me about "CoC stuff" (if I can put it like that), or
agree with (say) you, Scott. (I think we are quite far apart on
that.)
When making a political statement or resolution like this, it is a
good idea to limit your content to the stuff you actually care about,
and not put in anything controversial but unrelated. This is true
even if the controversial points are actually something you believe
in. One shouldn't unnecessarily alienate possible allies in a fight
over one topic, even if they might be opponents on some other topic.
So I think using a different word made my proposals more powerful
because it helped them appeal to a wider community.
If you want to have a wider conversation about "CoC stuff" then fine,
I guess, but maybe it would be best not to have it now ? Or maybe we
can talk about it over a beer sometime or something (you and I, I
mean, and yes this is a concrete offer, if circumstances make it
convenient).
I hope that helps makes sense of my position and maybe defuses some of
your unease.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: