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

Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC




On December 12, 2019 2:57:55 PM UTC, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>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.

Sure.  Also, I've had several hours working on non-Debian stuff to reset my outrage filters a bit.

I will continue to be concerned about the use of the CoC and it's goals to constrain speech where it's not needed.  I don't think further discussion on the topic is needed now, but if I see what I think is overreach in the future, you'll likely hear from me again.

We're less far apart on the goals of the CoC than I imagine you think.  It's highly likely, however, that I'm going to lean in favor of keeping things narrowly focused to achieve those goals because I place a high value on free expression (which is not the same thing as saying people should get a free pass to behave badly towards others).

Scott K


Reply to: