On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2015-05-25 10:49 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]>> >> <mailto:[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? >> > > I believe it should not be curated by Mozilla, or a third-party > organization that we hand this off to (as we currently do). The net effect > of any sort of vetting on the list by Mozilla, ISO, or another organization > is that in the cases where they get it wrong, we're making it impossible > for individuals to self-identify the territory they consider themselves to > be from. OK, then you and I disagree here. I'd prefer to accommodate such people by giving them a freeform field. > 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"? >> > > I believe it's fine to ignore such cases when coming up with general > rules, and treat them as spam and deal with them as such. > > Note that the users can already enter such unhelpful information in other > free-form (or pseduo-free-form) fields, such as the name field, and we > don't need to worry about such cases more than worrying about any other > spamming scenario. > Well, that's why I put in Sealand, since at least at one point there were in fact people claiming it was a sovereign jurisdiction. The line between "legitimate disagreement" and "spam" seems pretty fuzzy. -Ekr _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
