Sorry for the very late response, I'm aware a resolution has been made
at this point, but since I had a response drafted:
On 07/07/17 16:12, Daniel Silverstone wrote
I agree with that delta and would be pleased to update the Gitano covenant with
it since being held to inaction would be daft.
> 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.
Dominance is not about "this group of people are more
(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'.
I understand. My own ineloquence (?) didn't help my case here. I was
trying to outline that discrimination of any kind, against any
individual (or group), should be taken with equal concern and treatment,
if we're aiming for equality :)
To me, the clause is there to indicate that we have essentially
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 certainly see your point here, though I'm not sure how much benefit it
really is to "pre-judge"; it doesn't take much time to determine that
such a complaint is a little senseless. Though I can see how it could be
more useful as the community grows.
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.
I don't agree with the removal in its entirety, a more lengthy reasoning
in place of the "Reverse' -isms" statement would be appreciated, since
going by definition doesn't get the points across that both you and
Richard Maw have made (imho). In saying that, I'm happy that my own
interpretation isn't actually what is actually adopted by the community.
As an aside, I'm sure if I'd have my own CoC, it would almost certainly
just read "Don't be a dick". So by scrutinising I'm being quite the