There is a sleight of hand here, from alleging someone is an abuser, to the defense of said persons other characteristics, to necessitate defense of said abuse. To that claim you have produced no proof. Critiquing said defense on its own merits is another matter, and unless you can find proof to support your claims, what you have engaged in is libelous defamation.
You further dismissed a critique of CoCs on account of stemming from the person you deemed to be a rape apologist. This is an attack of character.
Failing to demonstrate why, implying a conflict of interest on part of said person, even guilty as far as you are concerned, one would think there is some sort of causal connection between sexual misconduct and instating a CoC.
Not a chain of command and handling of information, but the very implicit nature of policing people, where the law is already clear. Splitting it up and starting out by instating ones ideal without the enforcement. That it stems from a select few integral developers, and pertains to be for the community, really begs the question of who it represents, and for what reasons.
They are not mine, and as an irrelevant contributor, i respect your meritocratic authority to enforce it, but don’t hide it from me in plain sight.
The reason it is not something I, or I imagine others, are too happy to get into, is because it seems sanctimonious. You are one of very few people, to discuss such matters privately.
I understand it is not in effect still, but as such a person, I will still hold you to it.
I don’t humor myself at the expense of others. Though I read to your benefit, and peril, a total galvanic arbitration between the two.
Central to the point of Collaborate openly. In doing so, we already get the pre-agreed text to deal with, and in the very thread that discusses its content, another human is being a rape apologist, twice.
As it should. I fail to see what backing it has, what relevancy it has to the discussion, and in particular the quality of it.
I gave you the opportunity to not double down. Entertain the idea that I know exactly what you know about what isn’t public knowledge, then defend your position as if i didn’t.
The SecureDrop community members strive to:
Be friendly, patient and welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities.
This includes, but is not limited to, members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion and mental and physical ability.
Our work will be used by other people, and we in turn will depend on the work of others.
Any decision we take will affect users and colleagues, and we should take those consequences into account when making decisions.
Remember that we’re a world-wide community and we have a global base of users and of contributors.
Even if it’s not obvious at the time, our contributions to projects managed by the SecureDrop Community will impact the work of others.
This is redundant to law. The effect of stating any of this, even the innocuous bits, at length unrelated to any examples or situation, I have seen no positive effects of. It is a burden to read, which is a small concern compared to my main critique of it.
What bringing out groups of suggested abuse does, is forever target individuals of these descriptions, some involuntary held. Nobody is the same when that is done, instead it serves a reminder of how people are different, irrelevantly so to having a good community.
Which outside of being redudant to law, begs the question of why this needs to even be stated.
Is anyone confused to the nature of this community having a policy of being, segregationist, fascist, or exlusionary in a manner of other ways. Has it then been a problem to the point it needs pointing out? If you need a notice to say the knives have to be locked in, you don’t have a home, you have an institution.
Some people belong in those, and not in a community that welcomes any mental ability. It is a technical point, that no criminal psychopath will be thwarted by, but nontheless goes to show the fundamental belief in a CoC as an instrument of changing behaviour. It is a false security, because it lacks empathy with people one ought to not feel sympathy for. The two are often openly conflated in CoCs.
Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners.
We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
Members of the community should be respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with people outside of the community and with users of the projects managed by the SecureDrop Community.
This is a quote from the person that tried to mount a critique of CoCs, from that very text. Which it is somehow “perfectly fair” to call a rape apologist.
I am not comfortable with what I deem to be a personal attack.
Collaboration is central to projects managed by the SecureDrop Community and to the larger free software community.
This collaboration involves individuals working within teams, cross-project collaboration within the SecureDrop Community and working with other projects outside of the SecureDrop Community.
This collaboration reduces redundancy, and improves the quality of our work.
Internally and externally, we should always be open to collaboration.
Wherever possible, we should work closely with upstream and downstream projects and others in the free software community to coordinate our technical, advocacy, documentation and other work.
Our work should be done transparently and we should involve as many interested parties as early as possible.
If we decide to take a different approach than others, we will let them know early, document our work and inform others regularly of our progress.
We do not create private forms of communication that take away transparency or exclude other contributors and collaborators.
In the vein of openness, I have invited that girl to the community, and I tried as best I could to do so. In the sense that this section described procedure, fine, but that is not conduct, and thus belongs in a different place.
In my view, it falls on me to defend said girl, for my own ideas of morality. It could be included as a point to ask of community members to do so, so not as to escalate through people that have additional power.
When we disagree, try to understand why.
Disagreements, both social and technical, happen all the time and the SecureDrop Community is no exception. It is important that we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. Remember that we’re different.
The strength of the SecureDrop Community comes from people with a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different perspectives on issues.
Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. Focus on helping to resolve issues and learning from mistakes.
It is important that we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively and with the help of the community and community processes.
When our goals differ dramatically, we encourage the creation of alternative implementations, so that the community can test new ideas and contribute to the discussion.
To instead start with Evelyn Beatrice Hall of Voltaires tolerance “I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.”, framing this in a manner, gives an understanding of where disagreements stem from, and what they are.
When we are unsure, we ask for help. Nobody knows everything, and nobody is expected to be perfect in the SecureDrop Community.
Asking questions avoids many problems down the road, and so questions are encouraged. Those who are asked questions should be responsive and helpful.
However, when asking a question, care must be taken to do so in an appropriate forum.
Is one obliged to answer in a constructive manner, and is this logically consistent with all mental abilities? Should you try to answer questions in a manner people would know to ask if they possessed your knowledge?
Dodging questions and ducking debate is in my opinion a sign of weak character.
We take the following very seriously, and any violations may impact your ability to participate in the SecureDrop Community
Because that is the way it works in being a community, or because you will be excluded from it if not? What constitutes a violation?
Be careful with your words and actions. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other exclusionary behavior is not acceptable and should be reported.
This includes but is not limited to:
Exclusion by exclusion is not compatible with inclusion. When you remove context, and listen to one side, it throws due process out.
Violent threats or language directed against another person.
Discriminatory jokes and language.
Posting sexually suggestive, explicit or violent material.
So sexuality is deemed immoral or unwanted now is it? How humane is that?
For a community that deals in whistleblowing, violent material is bound to come up sooner or later.
In what context it is used, and with what discretion, is relevant. It’s nature isn’t.
Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”).
Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
I can’t help but feel condescended upon by a being of greater virtue.
If you treat people as children, they behave as children.
To any adult, intent matters.
You can’t detail a system of social interaction in writing, it is far too complex, and policing it with infractions of no feedback-loops, is a de-facto police state.
Unwelcome sexual attention.
This is not how sexual attraction works, which in no way is an excuse of sexual abuse.
Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
So if I tell someone they should for try their luck with a potential mate, and the first and only occurrence is deemed unwanted, I am now in the wrong. Guilt by association, and removal of agency. It doesn’t get better because it sounds better.
Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop.
The first, not exhaustive nor conclusive, occurrence of harassment is blowing past the first “stop”.
The word “repeated” is used to no great result here.
Respect the decision process.
Members of the SecureDrop community should not attempt to manipulate decisons based on consensus or election results.
Open debate is welcome, but vote trading, ballot stuffing and other forms of abuse are not acceptable.
This is an appeal to?
This is an appeal to said implied authority.
Who are we, and what makes you so sure this naturally follows? I only know of one non-sequitur there, and it is alarming.
I feel like the older CoCs belong to the mafia and the catholic church, and that their totalitarian and moralizing nature carries over. To some degree the samurai honour code applies to the description of being an old CoC.
I will make no attempt to read into this what ellipsis and winks adds. Would you be fine instating it if nobody appeared to speak out against it?
What does this mean, and what does it point to?
The only thing I can find is
That sounds nice, but who decides that?
If you have to read into it things that you should just understand, is it not redundant to culture?
The initiated need no confirmation, and the uninitiated are none the wiser.