3 ms·

I think a more charitable reading of the GP might be to assume they were talking about needing consent from everyone on the list before including a mail sig con

I think a more charitable reading of the GP might be to assume they were talking about needing consent from everyone on the list before including a mail sig containing "--hugs, <person>". I've seen a bunch of that sort of sig on various tech lists over the years. Still not something you'd expect to see in a workplace, but most FOSS devel lists haven't historically even attempted to replicate the kind of environment you'd expect in a workplace and I'm not sure that drawing the parallel is useful. FWIW I'm not trying to say the GP was right whichever reading we go with (and if we assume your reading then it's definitely pretty creepy), I just wanted to point out that a more charitable reading exists.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Thank you for being reasonable. Both the post I replied to and text quoted therein >> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. > Much like it would be a problem in the real world. Operate on an nonsensical category of "simulated physical contact" and the assumption that typing hug is somehow similar in nature to hugging someone. Saying hi and saying the word hug fall into the same category. Written speech. When its transgressive we might better term it harassment or sexual harassment depending on the nature of the transgression. I don't support harassment sexual or otherwise. I shouldn't have to disclaim this because I'm making a critical statement about a code of conduct. Everyone who disagrees isn't a bigot. Logically a code of conduct could successfully say no to harassment or sexual behavior including unwanted serial huge emoters without specifically calling out virtual hugs. In fact including language that simultaneously - doesn't forbid any additional creepy behavior not already covered by language forbidding sexual harassment AND - opens the community up to ridicule is a net negative. I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps > But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits. Where does that come from? If you consult my statement. > In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people. Wherein do you find the defense of harassment?
- junke 6y ago
  > I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps That's a strawman, the CoC does not ban virtual hugs. It merely gives an example of behaviours that happen without consent or after a request to stop. The example is good IMO because it is the kind of little things that might look harmless to the person doing it but might be annoying to the one receiving it.

michaelmrose 6y ago

Thank you for being reasonable. Both the post I replied to and text quoted therein >> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. > Much like it would be a problem in the real world. Operate on an nonsensical category of "simulated physical contact" and the assumption that typing hug is somehow similar in nature to hugging someone. Saying hi and saying the word hug fall into the same category. Written speech. When its transgressive we might better term it harassment or sexual harassment depending on the nature of the transgression. I don't support harassment sexual or otherwise. I shouldn't have to disclaim this because I'm making a critical statement about a code of conduct. Everyone who disagrees isn't a bigot. Logically a code of conduct could successfully say no to harassment or sexual behavior including unwanted serial huge emoters without specifically calling out virtual hugs. In fact including language that simultaneously - doesn't forbid any additional creepy behavior not already covered by language forbidding sexual harassment AND - opens the community up to ridicule is a net negative. I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps > But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits. Where does that come from? If you consult my statement. > In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people. Wherein do you find the defense of harassment?

junke 6y ago
> I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps That's a strawman, the CoC does not ban virtual hugs. It merely gives an example of behaviours that happen without consent or after a request to stop. The example is good IMO because it is the kind of little things that might look harmless to the person doing it but might be annoying to the one receiving it.