On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 14:04:36 +0100, Ben Brown wrote:
As quoted from that wiki:
COMMUNITY NAME prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over
privileged people’s comfort. RESPONSE TEAM reserves the right not to
act on complaints regarding:
The Gitano Community_ prioritises marginalised people's safety over
privileged people's comfort. [Gitano Community Managers] will not
act on complaints regarding:
"reserves the right to" in comparison to "will not" :\
I imagine that difference is due to a change on the GF wiki... Let me check.
I agree with that delta and would be pleased to update the Gitano covenant with
it since being held to inaction would be daft.
> Could you please explain your reasoning behind suggesting we
> part of the covenant? Could you give a hypothetical situation in which you
> feel it would be detrimental to have that present?
My personal gripe is with the "Reverse' -isms" line, as that almost seems
contradictory to the statement that everyone should be free from harassment,
since it reads as if it officially sanctioning discrimination against a
supposed dominant or majority group.
Yes, I've also read Richard's response regarding the definitions of the reverse
-isms in question and I see your points to some extent. Also it's a question of
discrimination *against* vs. discrimination *for*. It's a topic which will likely
raise tempers a little, but let's get into it a bit...
Unlike, it seems, yourself and Richard I see the community as having an
essentially dominant gender representation (the entire community is currently
male) and a dominant sexuality (the majority of the community identify, to the
best of my knowledge, as heterosexual), and for that matter I believe we're all
(at least everyone I know of) cisgendered. Finally we're pretty much all, to
my knowledge, white, western, and wealthy/privileged enough to be able to spend
our spare time working on F/LOSS.
Indeed, I am, to my knowledge, in a minority in the community since while I am:
* wealthy enough to be able to work on F/LOSS
I am not heterosexual and thus not in the dominant sexuality grouping.
Dominance is not about "this group of people are more powerful" necessarily
(given I'd say that while I'm in a minority, I am probably the most powerful
member of the community right now given how it is constructed), but simply
about being predominant in the sense of 'strength in numbers'.
To me, the clause is there to indicate that we have essentially pre-judged a
man saying "This person is saying I can't attend the 'Gitano for women'
conference because I am a man, this is sexist and I'm not happy" as essentially
a complaint not worth our time dealing with. The clause is therefore, to my
mind, present to discourage this kind of complaint and thus save people time
I'm very happy to apply the change you noted above and not bind us into being
unable to respond to a complaint which might, on the face of it, be covered
by the terms Richard sought to remove from the covenant, but I don't feel
we're best served by removing it entirely. I am, however, prepared to accept
it if every other active member of the community (and right now I count that
essentially as the two Richards, and yourself) want to overrule me. While
the Gitano Project isn't a democracy per-se, in this case I'm prepared to
consider 'majority rule' for the change.
Daniel Silverstone http://www.digital-scurf.org/
PGP mail accepted and encouraged. Key Id: 3CCE BABE 206C 3B69