On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2015-05-22 10:16 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 2015-05-22 9:14 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Ehsan Akhgari >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> >> On 2015-05-22 7:38 PM, Adam Roach wrote: >> >> On 5/22/15 17:59, Mike Connor wrote: >> >> Can you name an example that would actually be widely >> controversial? >> >> >> Perhaps the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic -- I'd have >> to >> brush up on >> Moroccan politics to be sure. >> >> >> OK, so let's say that someone living in that region wants to >> be >> identified as living in SADR. Why is that not OK? And why >> is it up >> to us to decide that? And why would Mozilla care if the said >> individual wants to be identified as living in the SADR or >> in Morocco? >> >> If not, I don't think this is a material concern. >> >> >> Can you predict the entire worldwide political >> landscape for the >> rest of >> the lifetime of the project? >> >> >> Nobody can, but what is the point of this question? >> >> There are some very plausible, very near-term futures >> where an >> alternate >> government that currently controls parts of what are >> widely >> recognized >> as Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Nigeria begins to establish >> diplomatic >> relations with other countries. It isn't hard to >> believe that, >> much like >> the gradual diplomatic acceptance of the PRC in the >> '50's and '60's, >> such an entity might gain recognition by a non-trivial >> percentage of UN >> member states. >> >> And that? That would be controversial. >> >> >> It seems like you're optimizing for a different goal than >> some >> others in this thread: avoiding making controversial >> decisions, and >> your solution is to hand that off to another organization >> (the ISO.) >> >> Let me just talk about one of the most controversial cases >> for a >> second: ISIL, since you've mentioned it up-thread. Let's >> say that >> there are people who self-identify as ISIL citizens, and >> they would >> like to be part of the Mozilla community. What is the harm >> in >> allowing that individual to self-identify as such for the >> purposes >> of their Mozilla contributions? >> >> I think this debate simply boils down to what goal we're >> trying to >> achieve here. If our goal is avoiding controversy at all >> costs, >> then your suggestion makes sense. But I would like to >> suggest that >> our goal should be building a strong community that is open >> and >> welcoming to all, no matter which part of the world they >> were born >> in, and live in, and how they identify where in the world >> they >> live. With that goal in mind, off-loading this decision to >> ISO >> makes no sense, since that is effectively Mozilla taking a >> stance on >> what is and is not a country, and taking away the ability >> of our >> contributors to make this call. >> >> >> Well, it's worth noting that this thread started (going on two >> weeks ago >> now) when someone complained about someone else using "Prishtina - >> Kosovo - Albania" as their location. >> >> >> Of course. We need to make it clear that it is the user who has >> decided how to fill that form, and what to put there, through the >> language around the UI where this information is displayed. And we >> will obviously keep receiving complaints from people who don't >> recognize the states found on Mozilla Reps or other Mozilla venues, >> and we need to keep explaining that to them. >> >> You may argue that it's futile to keep trying to stop these >> complaints, but I'd say that is OK, since the more important thing >> is for us to be welcoming to individuals no matter how hey identify >> their location. >> >> > I suspect that the person >> >> complaining didn't feel like we were fostering a welcoming >> environment. >> >> >> Well, I have to say, with the current state of things, I don't >> believe we are as welcoming as we could be in this respect too >> >> >> Could you elaborate a bit on what you are arguing for? A freeform field >> or a method of extending the canonical list? >> > > A freeform field is unfortunately not suitable because of the reasons > mentioned before (such as making it harder to perform searches because > misspellings, etc.), so at the lack of that, I think we should be open to > expending the canonical list using user-assigned code where ISO-3166-1 > fails to list a country in situations similar to the one for Kosovo. > Thanks for clarifying. Do you believe Mozilla should curate this list or merely record whatever people want to put there? If curated, what should be the conditions? If not curated, what if I want to put in "Sealand", "Mars", or "People's Republic of Fuck You"? -Ekr _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
