3 ms·

At some point these things become so broad that they exclude any non-technical discussion. If Debian welcomes everybody, they also welcome white supremacists, n

At some point these things become so broad that they exclude any non-technical discussion. If Debian welcomes everybody, they also welcome white supremacists, nazis, murderers, hippies, polygamists, and other groups which the West views as undesirable. Under a literal interpretation of their statement, I can make practically any statement and any ostracization would violate their listed principles. What if I say I engage in sending 1000 spam emails to the Debian list every day, and that I believe this will make God happy with me? Debian will be contradicting their statement if they do violence to my spam messages, because they will not be respectful of my religion. Here's a less disruptive scenario in terms of the ability for the list to function: What if I believe it is my religious responsiblity to broadcast the message "God Hates Fags" to the Debian list, as the WBC in the US believes it is their religious responsibility to broadcast this message to the US populous via street protests? Debian would contradict their statement if any ostracization occurred on their list, if my messages were banned, if I were asked to change my sig, or if any other direct negative consequence was perpetrated or assisted by a Debian developer because of my post. If Hans Reiser ever writes a Debian list, I expect him to be treated like any other contributor based on that statement. What is this supposed to mean or solve? I don't really get it. If the intention is to stop any politically incorrect speech, a literal reading of that statement surely does not do so. Why do we want to stop all politically incorrect speech in the first place? EDIT: Note, this has been edited. Some upvoters may have upvoted when less incendiary language was in use.

sciurus 14y ago
What part of "We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community" did you miss?
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  And who determines what represents a constructive interaction? Is it something that upsets people? If so, doesn't that mean that Debian does not respect religious or ideological beliefs that are interpreted as threatening by the mainstream WASP (as Debian is mainly comprised of WASP contributors)? If so, what was the point of this statement, again?
  - sciurus 14y ago
    I believe the point is well-expressed at http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/03/msg00061.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/03/msg00061.html "You can't have an open and welcoming environment if you're open to people who work to make the environment non-welcoming to others. It is, like most things in life, a balance. There's an old saying: the problem with an open mind is that people throw all kinds of crap into it. Neither one's mind nor one's community should be too open. Inclusivity does mean telling people who are not willing to allow others to be included that they should find a different project to be part of. The point of a diversity statement is not to accept all behavior of any kind. It's to make a positive statement about what sort of behavior we're actively seeking out and want to align ourselves with."
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      And the given diversity statement certainly does not reflect any meaningful definition of the "sort of behavior [Debian] is actively seeking out". Do you not see the contradiction in the message you quoted? >Inclusivity does mean telling people who are not willing to allow others to be included [to leave]. This is self-contradictory unless there is no party that is "not willing to allow others to be included". You necessarily exclude someone. Is the line then, "We allow anyone who is not actively trying to get us to disallow someone else?" And if so, wouldn't that make anyone pointing out WBC-esque signatures an excluder who would have to be excluded to remain ideologically sound? What about people who are not specifically trying to exclude people? What if they say saying "God is OK with [group I dislike] contributing to Debian, but that group is still evil"? Is this tantamount to exclusion because it makes the individual feel ostracized, and if so, how do we tell when a statement is sufficiently likely to cause a feeling of ostracization in a person such that we have to stop it? What about divisive political issues? Surely there are Debian contributors who oppose gay marriage on primarily religious grounds and surely there are Debian contributors who support it. Wouldn't any advocacy of either position be "non-welcoming" to some significant and contributory group? Isn't saying, "Yeah, but people who [oppose|support] gay marriage are not worth my energy anyway" exclusive? The statement is so broad that it means nothing.
anamax 14y ago
The more interesting question is what will happen when a known member of {insert bad group here} particpates and does nothing but make meaningful technical contributions. At some point, he'll be outed and then what? I think that there's a better than 30% chance that said person will be booted. My question is more interesting because the situation that I describe is far more likely. (It's almost a certainty.)

sciurus 14y ago

What part of "We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community" did you miss?

cookiecaper 14y ago
And who determines what represents a constructive interaction? Is it something that upsets people? If so, doesn't that mean that Debian does not respect religious or ideological beliefs that are interpreted as threatening by the mainstream WASP (as Debian is mainly comprised of WASP contributors)? If so, what was the point of this statement, again?
- sciurus 14y ago
  I believe the point is well-expressed at http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/03/msg00061.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/03/msg00061.html "You can't have an open and welcoming environment if you're open to people who work to make the environment non-welcoming to others. It is, like most things in life, a balance. There's an old saying: the problem with an open mind is that people throw all kinds of crap into it. Neither one's mind nor one's community should be too open. Inclusivity does mean telling people who are not willing to allow others to be included that they should find a different project to be part of. The point of a diversity statement is not to accept all behavior of any kind. It's to make a positive statement about what sort of behavior we're actively seeking out and want to align ourselves with."
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    And the given diversity statement certainly does not reflect any meaningful definition of the "sort of behavior [Debian] is actively seeking out". Do you not see the contradiction in the message you quoted? >Inclusivity does mean telling people who are not willing to allow others to be included [to leave]. This is self-contradictory unless there is no party that is "not willing to allow others to be included". You necessarily exclude someone. Is the line then, "We allow anyone who is not actively trying to get us to disallow someone else?" And if so, wouldn't that make anyone pointing out WBC-esque signatures an excluder who would have to be excluded to remain ideologically sound? What about people who are not specifically trying to exclude people? What if they say saying "God is OK with [group I dislike] contributing to Debian, but that group is still evil"? Is this tantamount to exclusion because it makes the individual feel ostracized, and if so, how do we tell when a statement is sufficiently likely to cause a feeling of ostracization in a person such that we have to stop it? What about divisive political issues? Surely there are Debian contributors who oppose gay marriage on primarily religious grounds and surely there are Debian contributors who support it. Wouldn't any advocacy of either position be "non-welcoming" to some significant and contributory group? Isn't saying, "Yeah, but people who [oppose|support] gay marriage are not worth my energy anyway" exclusive? The statement is so broad that it means nothing.

anamax 14y ago

The more interesting question is what will happen when a known member of {insert bad group here} particpates and does nothing but make meaningful technical contributions. At some point, he'll be outed and then what? I think that there's a better than 30% chance that said person will be booted. My question is more interesting because the situation that I describe is far more likely. (It's almost a certainty.)