On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 3:07:57 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Scherrey wrote: > > James, > > I'm completely aware of the kind of situation you're describing in > some technical communities. I also don't find any evidence of it whatsoever > in ours, as I've pointed out repeatedly and have repeatedly asked for > evidence of by those who think a speech and behavior code is justifiable. > So far none has been forthcoming. You then ask "if you don't trust the > leaders of this community to handle things fairly and responsibly" well my > friend, that has already happened as I described before in this community. > So you seem focused on the theoretical while I'm far more interested in > what has actually happened. > > I'm curious to know - exactly what are the goals that people expect > from a speech and conduct code? Does anyone for this actually think that > such a policy is going to achieve these goals and do so without causing > more harm than good? >
I actually do think that more good than harm can come from this :) I checked the diff of #86. It is no different other than adding the DSF's opinion a bit more explicitly. It says "may affect," which is an opinion. There might be better ways to word it, and the CoC might need a bit of refactoring because #86 brings in some overlapping opinion, but the overall intent is good. As a longtime free speech advocate, I also see no formal restrictions imposed upon my rights by the specific words in #86. > I believe, when thoughtfully considered and viewing the evidence that is > publicly available to all, that they must fail. Is that not a very simple > burden of evidence that any such policy should have to over come before > being adopted? > There is enough evidence. There have sadly been serious incidents in our community that have not been reported formally out of fear. Improving the CoC to better address the problem is certainly worthwhile. It may be impossible to eliminate serious incidents entirely, but at least we can try our best. Audrey > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, James Bennett <ubern...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I have been involved in building and participating in and running >> technically-oriented groups for fifteen years. I've seen a lot of stuff. >> >> The most common problem pattern I have seen is the "I'm not touching you" >> game. To understand what this means, imagine parents driving a car, with >> two children in the back seat. Child A keeps poking Child B, so the parents >> instruct Child A to stop touching Child B. A few moments later, things >> resume, but now Child A says "I didn't touch him, the sleeve of my shirt >> touched him, you didn't say the sleeve of my shirt couldn't touch him". And >> away we go as Child A comes up with ever more convoluted technicalities to >> try to keep harassing Child B while still claiming it "wasn't against the >> rules". >> >> The "I'm not touching you" game is also a favorite of many types of >> people on the internet. Avoiding it requires policies which contain both >> affirmative and negative statements (i.e., lists of things >> encouraged/expected, lists of things forbidden) as well as a certain amount >> of discretion -- even, dare I say, a vague but probably large amount -- to >> be left in the hands of whichever person or persons will be responsible for >> enforcement, so that we don't end up playing "I'm not touching you" until >> the end of time. That little bit of discretion to step outside the stark >> technicalities and just bluntly deal with such people makes, in my >> experience at least, all the difference between a workable and an >> unworkable policy. >> >> So those are things that need to be in our CoC. If they make you >> uncomfortable, if you don't trust the leaders of this community to handle >> things fairly and responsibly, if you are chilled, silenced and terrified >> byt the idea that harassing behavior would result in ostracism from the >> Django community, then perhaps the Django community is simply not the place >> for you, because the kind of community we want to have and the kind of >> community you want to have may not be compatible. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg9k1U6QA8dD3crFh%3D4JvpiDv19WLCUnOJ997DywAdjdCg%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg9k1U6QA8dD3crFh%3D4JvpiDv19WLCUnOJ997DywAdjdCg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies <http://proteus-tech.com> > Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions <http://biggestfan.net> > Personal blog where I am not your demographic > <http://notyourdemographic.com>. > > This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have > received this email by accident - well lucky you!! > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0cc7b2d8-e0cc-4429-8f4a-a504ce485997%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
