On 2015-05-25 11:20 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[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]>>
<mailto:[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]>>>
<mailto:[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.
Do you disagree with a "free-form field + autocomplete for existing
entries", similar to the way tagging is typically done in web apps, for
example?
> 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.
I would be perfectly happy with trusting the module system to navigate
those fuzzy cases.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
