[Linux-aus] Code of Conduct.. Into the fray, I go again.

[Rob Thomas]

> 1) I think the specific image used in the talk was sexual, regardless
> of whether bondage in general is.

And this is where we go round and round in circles again.  Almost
everyone agrees that the photo (if it's the one I'm thinking of, with
the two girls) was eroticism. Few agree it was sexual. Therefore, the
riot on lca2011-chat.

People were disturbed by this photo. Shouldn't we just fix the CoC
(c'mon, it's a simple one word change here, why am I having to fight
this fight AGAIN?) to ensure that people don't get disturbed again?

The point of the CoC is to explain what LA expects from its
presenters. At the moment, what the members of LA want is NOT what's
in the CoC.

> 2) Whether it was sexually explicit, demeaning or offensive is a
> different matter, and open to interpretation (as the thread on
> lca2011-chat CLEARLY demonstrated), however, it was clearly against
> the code of conduct adopted by LCA2011.

Again, this comes back to the Sexual vs Eroticism issue.
Unfortunately, it was a long way from 'clearly against the code of
conduct'.. I present, again, the riot on lca2011-chat as proof 8)

> Resolving this specific bug will not leave other flaws unattended.

Indeed, but it'll fix one of them!

--Rob