Dave Cridland kirjoitti 28.1.2025 klo 23.23:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 21:06, Arc Riley <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:01 AM JC Brand <[email protected]> wrote:
FWIW, I don't think coming up with ever more fine-grained
categorization of what constitutes marginalized persons and
putting that in the CoC is the right way to go.
One can always come up with more categories of marginalized
people, and trying to enumerate all of them in a CoC is IMO
impractical, while mentioning only some of them can create the
impression that some categories of people are "more equal"
than others.
It isn't always about practical enforcement, it is a statement of
values.
As a member who belongs to at least three of the typically listed
groups, including LGBT, and I have been assaulted for this, I
rarely read the lists but it makes me feel safer in new groups.
Thanks for writing this, it really does help.
I have to admit, I deliberately avoided using the term "LGBT"
anywhere, for fear of ending up ina debate of what other letters were
missing.
But what do you think is missing from:
You are welcome at XSF Activities. Ensure that you are also welcoming
of others. We want everyone to feel welcome no matter what the colour
of their skin, where they live, or where their ancestors came from. We
want to welcome people from all cultures, and religions, and of all
sizes and shapes. We want people to be welcome no matter their sexual
identity or orientation. We want you to feel welcome no matter your
level of experience or ability. And we want you to help us make
everyone else feel welcomed, too.
As you mentioned elsewhere we are missing the Conduct team to be taken
seriously (a Conduct team that has demonstrated it will protect people
and that the community trusts to uphold said values). That aside:
Some points that are missing are listed in the code of conduct in the
contributor covenant that jonas' posted.
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/
for example age or caste.
another good example is https://lgbtq.technology/coc.html
some points that are not mentioned in the current CoC are:
- pronouns
- harassment.
- No debating the rights and lived experiences of marginalized people in
the community.
- Deliberate misgendering or use of “dead” or rejected names
as some examples. a more complete also CoC can be found in the
JoinJabber Project
https://joinjabber.org/about/community/codeofconduct/
there is also a list at the bottom of the JoinJabber CoC that links to
other CoCs that informed it.
Also gnome has a code of conduct here https://conduct.gnome.org/
that says among others
The GNOME community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over
privileged people’s comfort, for example in situations involving:
* “Reverse”-isms, including “reverse racism,” “reverse sexism,” and
“cisphobia”
* Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,”
“go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you.”
* Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive
behavior or assumptions
* Communicating boundaries or criticizing oppressive behavior in a
“tone” you don’t find congenial
Lastly you can see also
https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy
and https://kit.pyladies.com/en/latest/policies/coc.html
that say among others also:
*
*Using welcoming and inclusive language.* We’re accepting of all who
wish to take part in our activities, fostering an environment where
anyone can participate and everyone can make a difference.
*
Unwelcome physical contact, including simulated physical contact
(eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent
or after a request to stop
last one is especially interesting because i doubt a lot of us have seen
it happen but it is one of those cases where we should trust the
marginalized communities that have it there as a rule instead of our own
privileged.
MSavoritias
