On 25.05.19 01:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Threats of violence, racist or sexist abuse would get someone kicked out whether or not we have codified rules or processes.
Really? That should be written down and defined. Because people _always_ argue that what they said wasn't racist/sexist/homophobic. (e.g. "pantigate"). Hand-wavy "of course we ban X-ist abuse" just isn't good enough. Absent a proactive declaration that bigotry isn't tolerated, marginalized people will make the rational decision that it will be accepted. Many social media sites _claim_ they ban abuse, but e.g. Twitter. It's the year of our loud two thousand and nineteen, a CoC for your communication channel is the basics. There should be no problem strictly defining. and banning, this sort of thing if it's rare? Right? 😉 How about we copy the diveristy-talk@ CoC ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct )?
tearing the idea apart in public is totally ok and if people can't stand that kind of (intellectual) heat then they cannot be part of that aspect of the project in which such ideas are debated.
NB: Subconscious biases! Which do exist and often affect marginalized people. People can think they are being objective & giving accurate criticism, but they might be treating a marginalized person harsher then they would a privileged person. If you're getting to the level of different cultural definitions of "respectful", it's hopelessly naive to pretend subconscious biases don't exist.
Sometimes people attack the person presenting an idea, instead of attacking the idea.
On the surface this sounds like a good idea. But I can't help think of all the bigots who say "hate the sin, love the sinner" (happens a lot with LGB issues). I'm not sure one can always separate the idea and the person. Alas this just makes our task harder! Rory _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
