Re: Fedora Council policy proposal: Community Publishing Platforms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hi Robert-André, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You shared a *lot* of feedback, so I will do my best to reply to your
comments about the Community Publishing Platforms specifically. Most of
your feedback was about the Code of Conduct, so I tried to avoid those
comments in the interest of a focused discussion on the proposed policy.

On 9/23/20 1:01 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
>  1) the perimeter of the CoC/Trademark guidelines should be as restrictive as 
> possible and not encroach the "space of *libre* expression" within Fedora: 
> personal blogs/microblogging are off limit, unless using Fedora trademarks […]

The Community Publishing Platforms policy proposal, as written, does not
encroach on libre expression as you defined it. In this case, the right
to free expression is only questioned if you choose to use the Fedora
Trademark in your expression.

I assume you mean restrictive as in restrictive to individual people's
actions on platforms not owned or controlled by Fedora, and NOT more
restrictive as in defining what people can or cannot post or share online.

Besides, if you use any registered mark that you do not own, AND are not
legally accountable and responsible for… that isn't exactly "free"
expression either as I see it! (Coming from someone who is NOT a
trademark lawyer/attorney.)

>  3) This would exclude:
>     - political opinions and religious opinions which are ideas, not people, 
> and as such are not covered. I typically expect this distinction to be not 
> understood in Anglo-saxon countries. It may be useful to strongly discourage 
> such discussions to take place within Fedora venues in the Coc.

Be careful about discouraging these conversations, or you will be
accused of censorship. :-)

I believe it is impossible in a global community to forbid political or
religious discussions. These topics inform and impact our personal
experiences as a human being, living in any country with both "fair" and
"unfair" laws.

However I think it is possible to have such discussions in a respectful,
considerate way. I think it is a better use of time and energy to define
*how* to have those conversations, instead of "slapping" people on the
wrist for mentioning a news headline or recent development by any
political or religious leader in the world.

I don't have an answer for how to do that right. Maybe in a future
proposal. But for the Community Publishing Platforms proposal, it is out
of scope. I appreciate this nuance anyways though.

>       Of course, if people find out/dox that you are secretly a giant dick or 
> that you posted it on Onlyfans, some contributors will less likely want to 
> work with you, but *that shouldn't be a Coc issue in my opinion*, people are 
> adult enough to decide with whom to associate in good conscience without a 
> court decision. (In that case, any doxing should be ironically reprimanded, as 
> it would be within the realm of a targeted personal attack against the giant 
> dick). Some people will want to continue to work and ignore the drama, others 
> will thrive on drama and refuse to work with that person anymore.

Doxxing comes at a great risk for the person being doxxed. I am not sure
if you have received death threats, had your family contacted by
anonymous people threatening harm, or ever been threatened to have your
home address / phone number leaked on violent pornography sites. But I
have! It is not fun. It can be scary especially if you live in a country
with loose restrictions on firearm/weapon ownership and/or the integrity
of law enforcement is under question.

I think it is not enough to leave it to people to decide who they work
with or not. Usually the answer to "not working with that person
anymore" is to stop contributing to anything where you interact with
that person, because that person's presence is damaging to the offline
safety, protection, and privacy of you and even your family.

This is *definitely* a Code of Conduct issue and not related to the
Community Publishing Platforms proposal. But I wanted to add this
perspective anyways.

>  6) Any parties can ask for his or her case to be reexamined.

The right to appeal. Yes, this is important!

> Anyway, I keep hearing about this Coc draft by Bex but I never seen that 
> actual draft. Now Marie Nordin/riecatnor is on it since last year? There are 
> tons of links in Pagure 
> but this is not really structured.
> > We should be as transparent as possible, keeping reports confidential
is a
> disservice to the community, and may put a dent in the trust we may have in 
> the Coc council.

Yes, it has taken a long time and there is still not a public version.
Believe me, I would like to see something more public too. :) But the
challenge of being an open source project housed under a major
U.S.-based corporation is there are legal policies and laws that… just
take time to avoid missteps that might put Red Hat Incorporated (or IBM)
in a courtroom.

The draft is making rounds through Red Hat Legal because Red Hat is
"legally accountable" for Fedora (again, according to me, a non-lawyer
and non-Red Hat employee). Wearing my Council hat, I know there is real
work happening on this behind the scenes and it matters a lot to Marie
and the rest of the Fedora Council too.

I hope I can ask you to extend the benefit of the doubt to this labor,
and I look forward to hearing your perspective once a public draft of
the Code of Conduct is available.

Justin W. Flory (he/him)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Outreach]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora KDE]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux Audio Users]

  Powered by Linux