MESSAGE
| DATE | 2020-02-24 |
| FROM | Alexandre =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Garreau
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Why the "social contract" should not be
|
Le samedi 22 février 2020, 20:48:43 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.
I’ve just read https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
Beside the usage of the binary *-free english phrasing which is
unfortunate when applied to human behavior, I noted that people who are
part of “this community” (gnu.tools community, I guess), and sometimes
pushing for a CoC within GNU, yet never abided by points 0 (“Demonstrating
empathy and kindness toward other people”) and 1 (“Being respectful of
differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences”) of section 1, while I
think it could be of great help to deescalate the tensions and disputes on
this list.
Yet, to refrain myself from any unappropriated accusation, I understand
point 0 requires skills which are unequally distributed according
populations (and sometimes pretty low in ours, so this is not a point I
particularely like being considered as obvious), and point 1 is something
that requires experience, at first, to be dealt with easily.
Anyway this is pretty much unfortunate as if you are the ones defending
such rules, you are socially smart enough to be more likely and able to do
this than your opponents… unfortunately, as I guess you may consider that
unlegitimate.
Also the recent attacks rms received recently, including by members of GNU
and FSF, doesn’t abide by points 1 and 2 of section 2.
PS: there’s the added issue that while this CoC talks about “community”,
it also does about “professional settings” (which to me is antagonist to
“community”, and the very reason why the “community” word is so used
nowadays (to include unpaid/unemployed people)), while this wiki is not
professional, and GNU is not a professional organization, nor even
withstand “professionalism” (I recall that being stated along with
recalling GNU’s name itself is a joke anyway). Also the wording of the
“community impact” of “permanent ban” section is unclear, in regards to
whether “inappropriate” and/or “sustained” also qualify “disparagement of
classes of individuals” (which btw might include any left-wing discourse
such as talking about “plutocrats”… something I can hardly see unwelcome
(yet I’ve seen a GHM talk being almost retired for something similar ><)).
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
