Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:01 PM, James Keener <jim(at)jimkeener(dot)com> wrote:

> I'm sorry for the double post.
>
> > If you read the reporting guidelines, it is requested that someone
> filing a
> report provides as much evidence as possible, and that is a really
> important provision, both for the person reporting and for the committee
> to review and adjudicate fairly.
>
> What does fairly mean?
>
> Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.
>
> You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change master-master
> replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told you I don't like the
> wording because of it's implication of supporting homosexual marriage,
> which I believe to be a personal offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply
> held religious beliefs". You tell me that's not your intent and that you do
> not plan to change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in
> all correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that supporting
> gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so deeply offensive.
> I submit all our correspondences to the CoC committee and complain that
> you're purposely using language that is extremely offensive.
>
> What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced to
> change the wording of your proposal that no one else has complained about
> and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?
>

I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause
trouble are likely to get trouble. This sort of case really doesn't worry
me. I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease
doing so.

But let's look at all fairness in a more likely scenario where someone
involved in, say, Human Rights Campaign posts something arguing that
marriage is not a bond that binds parents to their children but something
that exists solely for the benefit of the spouses and a conservative from,
say, India, complains. Do we ask the individual to change his or her
signature?

What happens if the signature proclaims that Tibet should be free and
Chinese folks on the list worry about ramifications for participating in
these cases?

But worse, what if by not taking sides, we say that this isn't big enough
for us to adjudicate and so the conservative from India puts up a quote on
his email signature citing Gandhi's view that accepting consent-based
morality to sexual contact leads to accepting homosexual contact, and this
leads to misery for everyone. When challenged he points out it is just
social critique like the other signature.

Now what do we do? Do we side with one or the other? Or do we ban both or
refuse to get involved? At that point there are no longer any good options
but I will state my preference would be to reiterate to both that we ought
to have a live-and-let-live culture and this applies to cultural
differences on concepts of gender and marriage.

This sort of thing will happen. I have watched calls for pushing gay and
lesbian roles on television in the US lead to policies of censorship of
Western media in countries like Indonesia (where Glee among other shows are
now formally banned), and this is one issue which is incredibly divisive
throughout the world with a lot of people having very deep-seated feelings
on the issue, where one can expect small differences to lead to big
conflicts. And I think we want to avoid wading into those conflicts.

>
> Jim
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more