On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 05:11, MSavoritias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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: > > > To my mind, that's the key here. XEP-0458 can trivially be updated to include additional examples of both good and bad conduct, but if it's not being enforced even to the extent of having a Conduct Team in place, let alone an active one, then the entire thing is moot (that is, a discussion point rather than an action point). > 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. > > > Can you give me some text that covers those, in a similar style? > another good example is https://lgbtq.technology/coc.html > > some points that are not mentioned in the current CoC are: > > - pronouns > What exactly would you say here? > - harassment. > Harassment is right there in the list in 2.5. > - No debating the rights and lived experiences of marginalized people in > the community. > I'm not entirely sure what this means. That could easily be my ignorance - for the most part, I am not marginalized. But assuming it means what I think it means, it doesn't sound respectful, friendly, or supportive, and certainly not welcoming. > - Deliberate misgendering or use of “dead” or rejected names > I would hope this is overly specific - that is, it can't possibly be seen as respectful or friendly or supportive. And for what it's worth, we've had multiple members change their 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 > > > Here be tygers - there's a risk, here, that the kinds of criticism that certain people raised in the first round of this turns into a valid one - that is, that bad behaviour can be justified if it's done "for a good reason". That kind of pitfall was what prompted me to write section 2.2, actually. > 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. > > I think XEP-0458 covers this, in most if not all its sections. > > - > - > > 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. > I agree it's not explicitly called out, and in this case, I think it's worth adding something. Dave. >
