Dear Ale, Anders,
As you can imagine your point of view has come up in the many discussions that
lead to the formulation of this document.
The reason to have examples included, is that experience learns (from many
other groups that have done CoCs and/or that have dealt with harassment), that
concrete cases are necessary in order for a CoC to work. The argument being
that it should be explicit from the start that harassment is a reality and that
it should not be the problem of someone that feels harassed to convince others
that such behaviour exists. Even when the general tone of the document is
constructive, this CoC exists for a reason.
So while all involved in the drafting of it agreed to have examples, we felt it
was not up to us to formulate a list of specific cases. We decided to refer to
the timeline of incidents, as it is the only well-documented page on harassment
in relevant contexts that we are aware of.
The LGM-CoC addresses all types of harassment, and not only those that are
gender related. While I think the 'geek' and 'feminism' in the url is a detail,
I do share your concern that the examples are mainly gender related (it is not
true that they are only about harassment against women).
At the end of the day we were more concerned by not having any examples at all,
than to have only examples of a limited scope. Of course, if there are other
sources that you can suggest, it would be very good to include them.
best,
Femke
On 26/05/14 13:06, a.l.e wrote:
dear femke and all
first thanks for your work on this document!
the LGM CoC looks good to me.
... just one thing...
- I agree that the reference to examples was awkwardly phrased and simple is
better:
"Some examples: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents";
personally, i would prefer that line to be removed.
on the one side, i'm not sure that a list of examples needs to be there. the
document seems to be clear enough!
on the other side, "geek" + "feminism" in the url and the fact that most (if not all) the examples
are about women (i could not spot any about any other gender/sexual/skin/religious/you name it category that tend to be
the target of "incidents"... but i have not read the whole page) does not match the idea that a CoC is there
to protect each participant from any other "bad" participant. whether they are geek or not, males or women,
or anything else they wish or happen to be.
for sure, not a reason to reject the CoC. but -- in my eyes -- a detail that
might be worth to be fixed...
but you (plural) might also have very good reasons to keep that link...
have a nice day and, again, thanks for the fine document!
a.l.e
_______________________________________________
CREATE mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
_______________________________________________
CREATE mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
