On 7 Jul 2017 14:45, "Ben Brown" <ben.brown@codethink.co.uk> wrote:

Hi all,

On 07/07/17 13:05, Daniel Silverstone wrote:

The Covenant was derived from
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy and for the
most part I believe I trust the geek feminism community to have added that
content for a good reason.

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:

vs.:

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" :\

It's a living document. I suspect the wording changed and don't object to our copy changing.

Could you please explain your reasoning behind suggesting we remove that
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.

My understanding is that the purpose is to remove the requirement to respond specifically to some classes of complaint that are pre-judged to be without merit (the merit of the pre-judgement is a different topic).

While the nature of the complaint means that it's more likely to come from some groups, other complaints are to be handled equally seriously independently of the groups of who the complaint is from and who it is about.