Re: Women in GNOME

[danilo gnome org (Danilo Šegan)]

Hi Alan, Dominic,

Yesterday at 18:31, Alan Cox wrote:

> It shouldn't IMHO be taken that way. Most discrimination of all kinds is
> utterly unintentional, and that kind of discrimination is harder to
> tackle because there is no evil intent and no-one to directly blame. It
> still needs tackling, and that is in part about making people understand
> when their actions put off or exclude others.

Any actions whatsoever put off or exclude others.  

Eg. even insisting on freedom (in practice) excludes those who insist
that they need no freedom in software (even if we're not intentionally
excluding them: if they need no freedom, it doesn't mean that it will
harm them, so why wouldn't they join and help us?).  

And as already indicated on this list, there are several people here
who are afraid that establishing Code of Conduct would "put off or
exclude others" as well (i.e. be "discriminative").  And not because
they would not abide by the rules, but because they wouldn't want to
be told what to, and what not to do.

Shall we stop promoting freedom because of this "discrimination"?  Or
"being nice"?  (this is exactly the reason I am in favour of CoC:
just like we should promote freedom even if it puts off someone, we
should promote politeness even if it excludes someone)

I'd rather say that we're getting increasingly and needlessly touchy
here.  Lets just get on with the Code of Conduct (or whatever the name
is now), and hope that it will resolve issues we as a community might
have, yet are unable to acknowledge or recognise.


Cheers,
Danilo