On 15/12/14 16:02, Mike Hoye wrote:
> I wasn't clear about this, but yes. They're happening in parallel, it
> would be nice to ship them in parallel, but there's nothing tying them
> together.
Great :-)
> This is the basis of my argument that "by taking an active role in this,
> we can do better". We want - bluntly, Mozilla needs - intensely
> passionate people, and this is an an attempt at a framework for Planet
> that helps people find and support each other while mitigating the
> "crossing the streams"-style hazards that having a community full of
> intensely passionate people involves.
I guess my point is that this doesn't have to involve that; it doesn't
have to be a hazard. It is so because of the choices some people make.
I read stuff I fervently disagree with _all_the_time_. In fact, I want
to make sure I keep doing it, because it's good for me. (Also, given the
circles I move in, it's fairly unavoidable :-) I take responsibility for
my own reactions to those ideas, and if I have a problem with them, it's
my problem, not the author's problem. I can always stop reading and move
on to the next thing.
Sheeri said something very interesting the other day. She suggested that
people wanting not to be exposed to views they disagree with were
demanding a form of privilege.
>>> To that end, we are going to propose that Planet have a participation
>>> policy including words to the effect that "in discussing contentious or
>>> personal topics outside of Mozilla's mission, please consider
>>> invitations to conversation welcome, position statements not, and
>>> exercise your judgement with the growth of a kind and inclusive
>>> community in mind."
>>
>> The difficulty with this is that either it's meaningless, or it's code
>> for something else.
>>
> I disagree; we are informed by history here, know that some topics are
> particularly divisive or inflammatory, and can speak to each other about
> new ones as they come up.
Perhaps I wasn't clear - it was the "exercise your judgement with the
growth of a kind and inclusive community in mind" that I was suggesting
was either meaningless or code, not the "contentious or personal topics
outside of Mozilla's mission".
If someone is posting to planet with the explicit aim to grow a harsher
and less inclusive community, they should just stop blogging altogether!
But no-one I know does that. Again, the trouble is that people draw
unwarranted conclusions. "Person X believes in political goal Y,
therefore he must believe that people group Z are second-class citizens,
therefore he must want to remove all people in group Z from Mozilla,
therefore he is not in favour of a kind and inclusive community." This
logic has been deployed more than once recently, and it's a load of
cobblers.
To put it another way, there's a big, big difference between someone
actually posting to frustrate the growth of a kind and inclusive
community, and other people using "you aren't fostering a kind and
inclusive community" as a stick to beat someone with unpopular opinions.
What it actually means in that context is usually "I've taken offence".
>> The problem with this second requirement is that it presupposes that
>> there is a distinction.
>>
> This is a valid point, but I still think there's room for a nuanced
> distinction here. Nobody disputes that ones' religion shapes one's
> decision, but an invitation to participate in one's religion is
> different than an invitation to participate in your decision making
> process.
>
> Frankly, if we're going to make this work at all then caring about
> nuanced distinctions is the name of this game.
Fair. However, Ben Smedberg's recent post (which, it seems from Yammer,
many people thought was much more acceptable than other controversial
postings have been) was an invitation to participate in one's religion.
("I'd like to invite my colleagues to Jesus Christ.") And such
invitations are incredibly rare on Planet - that's the only one I know of.
> Maybe my mistake here is in calling it a policy, when what I'm proposing
> is a request for courtesy.
>
> If you know you're about to say a thing that may be distressing or
> confrontational to fellow Mozillians - whether you think they're
> justified in their reaction or not - a heads-up for what's coming seems
> like a fine and reasonable thing to do.
The thing about "whether you think they're justified in their reaction
or not" is that, while it's a commendable attempt to be non-judgemental,
is that if someone takes offence at something then that's the end of the
conversation - the author must be in the wrong. I don't think that's the
right balance.
> You and I would have very little common ground on theological matters,
> I'm sure, but I feel strongly that a world where you've put a small note
> up-front and then said what you have to say is a better one for everyone
> than a world in which you - or any Mozillians - feel compelled to stay
> silent.
>
> That's what I'm aiming for.
I genuinely applaud your efforts to allow people to express themselves
freely. I'm just not convinced that it will work out that if someone
posts something which other people take offence at, they'll say "well,
it has a disclaimer at the top, so I'm just going to get over it and
move on." If we could get there, that would be great. But it's not my
agreement you need :-)
Gerv
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
