[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

From: Alex Sassmannshausen
Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:27:31 +0100
User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1

Thorsten Wilms writes:

> On 28/10/2018 13.33, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
>> 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless.
>> 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it
>> discourages contributions.
> That's a somewhat limited and tame take on it ;)
> You may count me as having contributed (little as it was) despite of
> the CC, definitively not because of it.

I for one am very glad you decided to contribute!

> The association with the primary author makes some people think of the
> ... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of
> 2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short
> here, thus far from exact).

I think if you make these assertions you might want to bring context.
As it stands it reads a little like "poisoning the well": you seem to
imply the CC is bad because allegedly the author has done bad things in
the past.

> While one may say that the CC can and should be seen on its own, this
> background does turn it into ... unwelcoming language to some.
> I take it for some it reads like an invitation to those with little to
> nothing better to do, to report perceived or even made-up misbehavior.

And that assumption by those people would be, to the best of my
knowledge of the actual facts, incorrect.

> It has run-on sentences and ridiculous lists. Compare, and I can't
> even bring myself to quote from the start of the sentence in the far
> distance:
> "... regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender
> identity and expression, level of experience, education,
> socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race,
> religion, or sexual identity and orientation."
> With Debian's:
> "No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
> welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
> interact constructively with our community."
> How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from
> sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies
> ...

Just to clarify, gender identity and expression refers to who you (feel
like you) are.  Sexual identity & orientation is about who you are
attracted to.

> and biology? Disability is listed, not (level of) ability. Body size
> couldn't be be subsumed by (personal (what other kind could it be?))
> appearance?  Trying so hard to be political correct, but than using
> the loaded term "race".
> This one is too "funny":
> "The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard
> to the reporter of an incident."

This is not uncommon in the context of harassment cases.

> So if Jim reports that Jane threatened him to foobar his baz, then the
> project team has to contact Jane, but must keep it secret that Jim
> reported the issue? While being fair to Jane? Maybe such threats are
> illegal in the countries of both, maybe it's actually one country and
> police and the judicature might get involved?
> If the reporter is a 3rd party, sure, but even then an accused person
> may express anger towards the potential victim, via assuming that the
> potential victim reported personally.
> Now there may be cases where protecting a reporter is important and
> just, but this "protecting any accuser, always" stance seems
> problematic.

This reads like hyperbole.  If somenoe makes a complaint about me, I
will be contacted by the maintainers.  They will discuss the nature of
the allegation with me, and hopefully I will be able to say "Shit, I had
no idea what I did had this impact on someone else in the community.
Thanks for bringing this to me.  Any idea how I can avoid this in

I don't see where the problem is there?

>> 3. GKCG seems to be inadequate in the opinion of the maintainers, as:
>> a. it does not define acceptable behaviour, and
>> b. it does not define processes.
>> My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill.
>> I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG,
>> but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined.
>> Do you think this can/should be done?
>> Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall?
> Yes and yes, though I'm not sure how much of a GKCG-alike it should
> become, as I think it's important to have something short that people
> can read and agree with (or not).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]