To follow up on Till's comment: Mozilla is committed to being as inclusive as possible. That explicitly means we welcome anyone regardless of their beliefs, as long as they share our commitment to the Mozilla mission and are willing to work with other equally committed people. This, by necessity, requires that Mozilla spaces remain free of advocacy against the inclusion or rights of others, and free of discriminatory practices. As a purely practical matter, it's hard to imagine a member of any group feeling comfortable in a space where others are permitted to openly discriminate against them. The same is of course true of anti-religious discrimination, which is equally frowned upon.
-- Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Catherine Murphy Sent: April 6, 2014 1:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Moderation policy My understanding of the CPG is that promotion of exclusionary practices is not permitted, full stop. Thus I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that advocacy against same-sex marriage is not permitted on a Mozilla forum. As gently and civilly as I can, I'd like to point out that it seems pretty exclusionary to forbid people who hold a certain belief -- for many, though not all, a religious belief -- from uttering it. I am curious as to how this policy about exclusionary practices works out in practice at Mozilla -- and I'm not trying to be provocative or uncivil, I really want to know. Are, say, Muslims or fundamentalist Christians --many of whom hold religious beliefs about women's rights, homosexuality and various other matters, that look exclusionary to liberal Americans -- permitted to work at Mozilla? Do they have to keep quiet about their beliefs to protect their jobs? If so, why isn't that exclusionary? On Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:09:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Connor wrote: > On Apr 6, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > On 06/04/14 15:26, Michael Connor wrote: > > >> There's a lot of really poisonous and hateful stuff coming through. I > > >> don't think Mao/Stalin comparisons are any better than Nazi > > >> comparisons. Or concern trolling about pedophilia advocacy (which is > > >> a common false equivalency used to attack pro-LGBT activities). > > > > > > Yes, OK. I will try and do better and read more carefully. It's > > > difficult to decide what to do when you have a message which is mostly OK. > > > > I'd err on the side of caution. If people are willing to engage in a healthy, civil manner, I'm sure they'd be willing to re-submit a post that conforms to the CPG. If they're not willing be civil and constructive, they should not be given a platform here. The Web has plenty of places people can vent without restriction. > > > > >> A large number of these posts are, in my opinion, a direct violation > > >> of the requirement to keep support for exclusionary practices out of > > >> Mozilla spaces as enshrined in the Community Participation Guidelines > > >> [1], > > > > > > Can you walk me through how you reach that conclusion? > > > > * I don't believe it's ever acceptable under the CPG to advocate against LGBT marriage rights. > > * I'd explicitly drop posts using any of the common "attack" tactics: > > ** Comparisons to pedophilia > > ** Complaining about the "gay/queer/homosexual agenda" > > ** Arguing the right of the majority to dictate to the minority > > ** Toxic comparisons like Mao/Stalin against those who believe differently > > > > > I think it would be unreasonable, if there were two messages of equal > > > "intensity", one on each side of the issue, to use the CPG as > > > justification to delete one and post the other. Is that what you are > > > asking for? > > > > My understanding of the CPG is that promotion of exclusionary practices is not permitted, full stop. Thus I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that advocacy against same-sex marriage is not permitted on a Mozilla forum. > > > > By the same token, if there was advocacy against those with religious beliefs (i.e. "Brendan should have been fired for his beliefs" is a common thing I've seen elsewhere) I would equally call those violations. > > > > As, perhaps, a key distinction: > > > > * I think it's 100% on board to defend Brendan's right to his beliefs. > > * I think it's 100% out of line to debate/defend the correctness of Brendan's beliefs > > > > Does that distinction make sense to you? > > > > >> and I'd hardly call most of them "civil" in the context of the > > >> Forum Etiquette [2]. > > > > > > A lot of people are very angry, and I think that if we thought it was > > > important to listen to the other group of angry people: > > > > I'm 100% fine with engaging with angry people, if they are civil, and willing to constructively engage. I'd hope that you can see the difference between constructive questioning and emotional attacks. > > > > > "We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast > > > enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. > > > We must do better." > > > https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozill a-ceo/ > > > > > > then it's important to listen to this one too. I think that, in the > > > circumstances, we should cut more slack than usual here. And Mozillians > > > have been engaging with the angry people in the group, and even won some > > > over; please feel free to join in. > > > > I'll note that the people getting direct responses tend to be the people who are civil, rather than hateful. I'm happy to engage with individuals who are willing to engage in a civil way. I've been trying to do that where I have time. > > > > -- Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
