On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:58, Jonas Schäfer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dave, > > On Montag, 29. April 2024 11:18:57 CEST Dave Cridland wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:01, Jonas Schäfer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Concretely, I propose that we add to 2.4 Be respectful, the following > > > items on > > > > > > the list of things to avoid: > > > > - Use of racist, misogynistic, anti-trans, anti-gay, ableist slurs, > or > > > > > > other > > > > > > > derogatory pejoratives for oppressed identity groups against such > > > > > > groups. > > > > > > > - Blatantly racist, casteist, ableist, sexist, anti-trans, or > otherwise > > > > > > > > offensive and bigoted discourse. > > > > I think this would belong in 2.3, actually, > > I was torn on this, no strong opinions on the exact placement. > > > but in any case, I tried very > > hard to avoid explicit lists of what is acceptable. > > > > The research I did didn't give me a clear guide on this strategy - some > > people wrote that you absolutely should list everything that's > > unacceptable, but other people wrote that such a list essentially > becomes a > > licence to do anything not explicitly listed. > > > > Loosely, I felt that anything in a CoC can and will be weaponized against > > you, which is why everything is - mostly, anyway - written as broad > > principles rather than lists of examples. (And yes, there is a school of > > thought that says that the reverse strategy is more effective at > > deweaponising). > > I agree that everything in a CoC is bound to be weaponized by malicious > actors. > > However, as pointed out in my original email with my moderator hat on, I > find > explicit lists more useful. > > Yes, and I understand that point of view, but as I say I ended up persuaded by the competing argument somewhat more, and as a result that's not how 458 is written. > I also like that they send a clear message (not to the malicious actors, > but > in fact to those seeking protection under the CoC from malicious actors) > that > some thought was spent on this topic instead of just a vague, blanket > statement. > > I hope that's not how it comes across. Obviously I know how much I worked (and reworked) the phrasing, but also I know a lot of thought into specific bits came from others. > > In addition, I tried to write section 2 in particular in a > > friendly, calm, encouraging manner - rather that a stern list of rules > > which one must not violate. > > Maybe the wording from the contributor covenant [1], which I only learnt > about > recently but which I find very positive, would be a source of inspiration > then? To quote: > > | We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in > our > | community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, > body > | size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, > | gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio- > | economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, > | religion, or sexual identity and orientation. > > I find this a very positive wording at least. > > I do, but it's almost a bullet-pointed list, and does that mean things not on the list are a reason not to be welcoming? I also have issues with "harassment-free" - I mean, yes, obviously, but I rather hoped than 2.1 conveyed a higher bar than merely not being harassed. I don't think the community has ever harassed people; but it's most certainly made them feel less than welcome before. > > I actually think all your examples here are covered by 2.3 already, in as > > much as "subjects and expressions that may offend" is deliberately broad; > > (see above about the vagueness issue) > > I would take some issue with "vague"; it's not intended to be vague, but broad, and there is very much a distinction. > > and in common with the bit in 2.2 where if I accidentally used a castist > > slur (I genuinely have no idea what those might be) someone points it out > > and I take it as a learning experience and move on, I'd like to think > we're > > covered. > > I like 2.2, it is a good addition. I think it works very well once we as > an > organisation have demonstrated that it is in fact a safe space for an > oppressed group to bring such issues up. > > > As a particular example, I avoided the term "anti-trans" because that > > subject is heavily contentious; I did in 2.1 explicitly include "sexual > > identity", which might well be the wrong term, but that's (part of) what > > I'm aiming for there. > > Understood, I think that the C-C wording is more fitting here (sexual > identity, gender identity and sex characteristics are included, which > should > cover that sufficiently AFAIK). > > > I don't think this needs debating here - the goal is presumably to ensure > > that people from any and all backgrounds are equally welcome in this > > community, with the sole proviso that they too must be welcoming to > > everyone else. > > Exactly, tolerance paradox etc. > > > To wax philosophical for a moment, we are all bigots, but we > > are exhorted in XEP-0458 to avoid showing it. > > :-). > > > If you wanted to change or add to cover your concerns, I'd suggest doing > so > > in 2.1 in similar broad terms, rather than trying to police individual > > phrases. > > Then, copy&paste the first paragraph from the Contributor Covenant there? > > Well, I'm possibly biased, but 2.1 was the bit that in terms of tone I was happiest with, despite the fact that it broke the rule that I mixed examples with the primary text. And worryingly, this seems to be the root of much of your concern. We could add more examples around there, though I hoped that it was sufficient, or we could actually remove some of the examples out to an actual bullet-pointed list; this is one of the few sections that doesn't have one. > > > In addition, before the list of things to avoid, I would like to add: > > > > Respect others requests for space. That includes to disengage from a > > > > discourse if your partner(s) indicate that they do not want to > discuss a > > > > topic any further. It is not easy to let someone be "wrong" on the > > > > > > internet, > > > > > > > but boundaries are there to be respected. > > > > I think I understand what you're trying to achieve here, but I'm not sure > > this is the way to do it. > > > > If I understand correctly, you're trying to avoid someone aggressively > > continuing a conversation when someone else is trying to disengage > because > > the discussion is making them uncomfortable. I get this, but "She should > > have said if it made her uncomfortable", "Hey, they didn't say I should > > stop", etc. > > > > I do wish that I could have unilaterally stopped discussion of Carbons > > several times, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean either. > > Oh, don't get me started on the markup wars ;-). > > Oh, and I'd managed to forget about those. > > Let me ask this question: Under what circumstances do you think a > > discussion would enter the state that concerns you without having > > transgressed some other guidance in XEP-0458? > > I'm not excellent at phrasing, so I'll put this down as a list of > rfc-esque > requirements of what I was aiming for. When person A indicates boundaries > (e.g. "I don't want to discuss this any further"), then: > > - Another person X MUST NOT ping (mention, directly address) person A > about > that topic, unless A explicitly expresses interest > So you're blocking all 1:1 messaging? > - Another person X SHOULD NOT repeatedly ask person A to re-evaluate their > stance > - Other people MAY continue a discussion of the topic in public spaces > where > person A is also present (i.e. A does not get to police that Carbons is > not to > be discussed anymore) > > (assuming that the topic is not in violation of XEP-0458 already.) > > Right, I think I understand what you're trying to say here. But I think your "rules" are not really practical. > And a second case (which I do not think is covered by '458 already, but if > it > is, let me know) would be if A says to X "I do not want to discuss with > you > any further": > > - X MUST NOT ping (mention, directly address) person A, unless person A > explicitly states otherwise. > > (you could argue that A should just block X in this case, but given that > our > venues are email and XMPP, where blocking in public fora is not really a > thing > which works well, I don't think that's enough) > > Wording suggestions which cover these cases welcome. > > I think we're looking at 2.4 as being where to put this, since it covers disagreements in general, and say something along the lines of, "It's OK to agree to disagree", perhaps after the second sentence, "Sometimes these differences won't be resolved, and that's OK - if your argument isn't convincing someone, let it stand - and don't continue a debate after someone 'agrees to disagree'." > > > To section 2.5 ("Be friendly and supportive"), I would like to add > after > > > the > > > > > > first paragraph: > > > > This includes being mindful of the abilities of others; nobody is > born > > > > > > an > > > > > > > expert in anything and we all had to learn at some point. Be > supportive > > > > > > of > > > > > > > newcomers and learners. Do not be patronizing or condescending. > > > > I tried to capture this sentiment in the penultimate sentence of 2.1. Do > > you think it needs more? > > Yes, a little. It says "We want to be welcoming […]", but it doesn't quite > paint a picture of what newcomers may expect. > > I think my wording makes that clearer ("if you are new you can expect > supportiveness and no patronizing or condescending comments"). > > I think even if you're not new you should expect that, but I understand what you're saying. I think patronising/condescending belongs in a bullet point of things to avoid in 2.3, doesn't it? And maybe expand on the newcomer aspect in 2.1? > kind regards, > Jonas > > [1]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/
