[Linux-aus] Linux Australia Code of Conduct - revised draft

[Arjen Lentz]

Hi Russell Coker

----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Arjen Lentz <arjen at lentz.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi Russell
> 
> As there are multiple Russells on this list could you please use a
> full name or email address when attributing quoted text.

The previous reply was quoting and responding to Russell Stuart.


> > There's a psychological aspect to this which cannot be captured in
> > absolute
> > terms. I'll give you an analogy from my own experience in a related
> > realm:
> > My daughter's school has a clearly stated policy on bullying, and
> > has
> > shown to do what they say they would - if I'd had that at my school
> > long
> > ago, I would've been a happier (and safer) person back then.
> > Obviously it
> > does not necessarily prevent bullying - but the policy clearly
> > outlines
> > what is regarded as bullying, that it's not tolerated, and what the
> > consequences are. Then, should something happen, action needs to
> > follow.
> > But you need that baseline of expectations first. Indeed, some
> > incidents
> > will happen, and they can be handled under the policy. If it's
> > handled
> > well, it'll add towards creating clarity and trust which works
> > through
> > into feeling safe.
> 
> To continue that analogy, if the school community had ongoing debates
> about
> whether bullying existed, whether the consequences of bullying were
> unfair,
> and whether the discussion of bullying overwhelmed the focus on
> education then
> there would be a lot less clarity, trust, and safety.
> 
> I wonder how much these discussions are really about the stated
> intent.
> Everyone's position was known well before the last discussion ended.
> No-one
> is going to be directly convinced by any evidence. I think this is
> largely
> about signalling, the outcome of a discussion like this sends a signal
> to
> members of the minority groups in question as to what the general
> community
> response will be if they complain.
> 
> If this discussion ends with people saying that it's a distraction,
> not important, etc then the signal is that any complaints that may be
> made under the terms of the CoC are also distractions and not important.

I think that's a very neat description of the situation.
It's about projection of the group attitude.


> > The non-inclusiveness has already happened, over a long period: it's
> > been the rest of us not providing a welcoming and safe environment for
> > women (and others) to partake in. So some have gone away disappointed,
> > and others have set up initiatives to rectify the situation. The
> > absolute first thing from "our end" to rectify the situation is the
> > CoC. That's our indication of goodwill and intent.
> 
> The non-inclusiveness continues when every email discussion of such
> things gets a large input from people who dismiss all concerns.

Well to be fair, I have seen "concerns about approach to dealing with concerns". However, they were based on hypothetical scenarios, whereas the original concerns are firmly existent.

Let's deal with the real world as it is now, and adapt when we encounter new things.
That again shows our intent and direction.


Regards,
Arjen.
-- 
Exec.Director @ Open Query (http://openquery.com) MySQL services
Sane business strategy explorations at http://Upstarta.biz
Personal blog at http://lentz.com.au/blog/