brian m. carlson wrote:
> On 2020-12-23 at 14:46:56, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't
> > > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't
> > > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language
> > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
> > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences
> > > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
> > > * Focusing on what is best for the community
> > > * Showing empathy towards other community members
> >
> > As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24):
> >
> > This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed
> > to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted
> > language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations
> > and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document
> > used by the Git for Windows project.
> >
> > It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully
> > crafted phrasing.
>
> I am also strongly in favor of keeping the commonly used wording.
Do you care to explain why?
> If you feel that wording is inappropriate, it would be better to have
> the change adopted upstream.
What is upstream? [1]?
> > Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect", which
> > negates your argument for changing this word. We can only enforce what
> > is evidenced by actual communication, not the internal lives of community
> > members.
> >
> > I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without
> > being respectful.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> I should also point out that the situation at a university is different
> than the situation on this list. A university is a large institution
> which is dedicated to the pursuit of learning and in which one may find
> a variety of ideas. Sometimes those ideas (both past and present) will
> be offensive, but they are a part of learning more about the world. We
> may tolerate those ideas as existing and being subject to critical
> analysis, but ultimately reject them and have little respect for them.
Yes. But ultimately it's about truth.
> On the other hand, many people work on Git or other open source projects
> as part of their job duties.
Nobody has ever paid me a cent to work on git.
Should the minority of open source contributors be held hostage because
the majority are corporate contributors?
> As such, this is a professional environment for many contributors. In
> a professional environment, we need to be respectful of people who are
> different than us.
Yes, because somebody is paying you to behave in a certain way.
If a company is paying you to smile to customers, you smile to
customers.
What about the rest of us?
> We are aiming to have a common goal, which is to build a great version
> control system, and to have a coherent group of people who are willing
> to join together in that endeavor and best meet the needs of a
> diverse, multicultural base of users.
Indeed. And that's why we aim for the lowest common denominator.
We don't say; the majority of us use bash, so either you use bash, or
you are screwed.
We say; POSIX covers almost all of us, so let's try to aim for POSIX.
> The connotation I have of "tolerate" is "to suffer".
I don't think your definition is right.
Respect implies tolerance.
If you respect X, you tolerate X.
> In a healthy community, we try to minimize suffering due to others. I
> am respectful of the fact that my colleagues may have different
> religious or cultural beliefs than I do and I try to consider those
> beliefs, such as considering their holidays when I ask someone to
> switch an on-call shift or schedule a meeting. That can be a neutral
> or positive experience for all involved; no suffering need occur.
Therefore you are also tolerating those things.
> So I think the original Code of Conduct is more consistent with
> producing the positive, healthy environment we're looking for and best
> meeting our users' needs, and as a result, I don't agree at all that it
> should be changed.
OK. I have an opinion about this, but I cannot express it without
violating the code of conduct, so... I have three options.
1. I pretend (i.e. lie) saying that I respect that idea.
2. I express what I honestly think, but in theory I violate the code
of conduct (like many people constantly do in this mailing list).
3. I keep my mouth shut.
The reason so many intellectuals were against the word "respect" in
University of Cambridge's freedom of speech policy is not because
universities are special; it's because 1. and 3. are not conducive
towards truth.
As Stephen Fry put it: 'A demand for respect is like a demand for a
laugh, or demands for love, loyalty and allegiance. They cannot be given
if not felt' (you can only fake then).
Tolerance is the lowest common denominator everyone should be aiming
for.
Cheers.
[1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
--
Felipe Contreras
