1 |
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 25 April 2015 05:09:35 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
3 |
> [snip] |
4 |
>> 3.2. Add a new bullet point: |
5 |
>> <b>Harassing & Discrimination</b>. Harassing & Discrimination |
6 |
>> includes, but is not limited to offensive comments in relation to: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> This is needlessly fuzzy and will motivate the lawyer-type to find ways to |
9 |
> either frustrate you by staying within the limits, or claim to be offended by |
10 |
> your actions, thus applying this rule to you and forcing you to be removed. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It's a bit like defining obscenity ("I'll know it when I see it") ... |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
Hence the language "includes, but is not limited to" - that is a |
16 |
pretty standard approach. |
17 |
|
18 |
> |
19 |
> I'm confused how this is going to actually fix any issues that we can't |
20 |
> already fix. |
21 |
|
22 |
Well, we've had incidents that have gone to the Trustees where they |
23 |
didn't feel there was a basis for intervention. This might give them |
24 |
one since it concerned a matter on the list. However, if we want this |
25 |
to be binding on the Foundation we should work with the Trustees to |
26 |
figure out how to make it happen. The Council can't put this into the |
27 |
bylaws/etc alone. |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
>> gender; gender identity and expression; age; sexual orientation; |
31 |
>> disability; physical appearance; body size; race; religion; |
32 |
>> citizenship; nationality and familial status. It also includes: sexual |
33 |
>> language and images in public spaces; |
34 |
> (... but at least this amuses me - can we please not get Puritan Body Fear |
35 |
> into our CoC?) |
36 |
|
37 |
Just what activity that we want to have under a Gentoo banner would |
38 |
this prohibit? |
39 |
|
40 |
I like Robin's general comment that members of the Gentoo community |
41 |
should act like they're visible employees at work. It should be a |
42 |
reasonably professional environment. Members of the community |
43 |
shouldn't be afraid to mention Gentoo on their resume. |
44 |
|
45 |
As a semi-professional environment the stuff in that list doesn't |
46 |
really belong on our media. I don't think the wording as it stands |
47 |
would justify a ban on sci-biology/anatomy-atlas either. If somebody |
48 |
can think of a better way to word it so that Gentoo isn't banned at |
49 |
medical conferences, feel free to propose it. (Hmm, does anybody |
50 |
actually have boilerplate conduct language from a medical conference?) |
51 |
|
52 |
> |
53 |
>> deliberate intimidation; |
54 |
> (Would we have to ban Linus Torvalds if he were with us?) |
55 |
|
56 |
Probably. I don't think that it is a bad thing. However, I suspect |
57 |
he tends to follow the rules wherever he happens to be. Right now |
58 |
lkml doesn't have a policy like this, which is another matter of |
59 |
controversy, but we don't have to decide what their rules will be, |
60 |
just our own. |
61 |
|
62 |
> |
63 |
>> stalking; following; harassing photography or recording; sustained |
64 |
>> disruption of threads, talks or other events; |
65 |
> |
66 |
>> inappropriate physical |
67 |
>> contact; and unwelcome sexual attention. |
68 |
> This is covered by existing laws already, so why explicitly mention that |
69 |
> illegal things are illegal? |
70 |
|
71 |
Jaywalking is illegal in many jurisdictions. Gentoo shouldn't care if |
72 |
you've gotten a jaywalking citation. Gentoo should care if you harass |
73 |
somebody at a conference, especially if wearing a Gentoo badge, or if |
74 |
your behavior becomes associated with Gentoo publicly. |
75 |
|
76 |
Laws vary. Gentoo is a global organization. It is pretty typical for |
77 |
global organizations to set standards of behavior which transcend |
78 |
national law. Sometimes this even means choosing not to do business |
79 |
in places where the global policies would be illegal. Fortunately, I |
80 |
don't think this is likely to affect an organization like Gentoo much |
81 |
since we don't own much property, have employees, etc. |
82 |
|
83 |
> |
84 |
> So all in all, 9.5/10 for initiative, 3/10 for execution. This is imo not the |
85 |
> right way to 'fix' problems and, like the Proctors, can blow up in ways we |
86 |
> don't want/need. |
87 |
> |
88 |
|
89 |
I'm open to further suggestions for improvements, but I don't have a |
90 |
problem with a policy like this in general. |
91 |
|
92 |
For the record, I didn't have a problem with the proctors either, but |
93 |
I was only party to public discussions at the time. I think something |
94 |
like the Proctors would be useful. Right now our only solution is to |
95 |
tolerate issues until they get completely out of control, and then |
96 |
basically ban people completely from the distro. Oh, and we can talk |
97 |
them (and ourselves) to death while it is happening. The proctors |
98 |
might have been a bit like grade-school hall monitors, but they were |
99 |
designed to handle members of the community who were behaving like |
100 |
they were still in grade-school. A slap on the wrist for a minor |
101 |
infraction has the potential to get people to change their behavior, |
102 |
before you resort to serious sanctions. It also creates a series of |
103 |
escalations which makes it easier for Comrel to do their jobs - |
104 |
instead of somebody showing up "for the first time" they're showing up |
105 |
with a long string of failed enforcement actions. That doesn't mean |
106 |
that there isn't value in trying to work with people, and it certainly |
107 |
should be a part of the process. |
108 |
|
109 |
I know I've replied in threads when I've been bothered by something, |
110 |
beyond the point where I was being constructive. When that happens, |
111 |
please call me on it, preferably in private, but if I've blown it in |
112 |
public I can't exactly point fingers at people who rebuke me in |
113 |
public. I'm sure it will annoy me at first, and then hopefully I'll |
114 |
take a break from the keyboard and thank you for it later. I want us |
115 |
to be a community where we can work WITH each other and not some |
116 |
draconian HR org afraid of getting sued. However, it doesn't change |
117 |
the standards. We can work with people when they do things which are |
118 |
wrong, but we still need to acknowledge that they are wrong. |
119 |
|
120 |
I need to take another look at the CoC around enforcement/etc. I |
121 |
don't want any of this language to imply some kind of "one strike and |
122 |
you're out" commitment. Behaviors in the list are unacceptable, and |
123 |
there is no question about that. I just don't think that making |
124 |
people wear a scarlet letter is the right solution either. Judicial |
125 |
systems don't treat every offence on that list with equal severity, |
126 |
and we should have the leeway to do the same. |
127 |
|
128 |
-- |
129 |
Rich |