Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines

["Lefty (石鏡 )" <lefty shugendo org>]

Patryk seems to want to continue to pursue this discussion. I hadn't been
planning to, after Sriram's message, but since there's an obvious
interest...

On 6/26/10 12:58 AM, "Patryk Zawadzki" <patrys pld-linux org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Lefty ( 亢À ) <lefty shugendo org> wrote:
>> 
>> Is it _that_ difficult to distinguish between the sort of offense that
>> someone like Celeste Lyn Paul, a KDE board member, expressed when she wrote
>> ( http://identi.ca/notice/6304540)...
>> 
>> "Do men really think RMSs virgin joke at #gcds was not sexist? Very
>> disappointed in FLOSS comm chatter about this."
> 
> I'd say it was more stupid than sexist. He planned it to be a
> religious joke but ended up with a pile of crap.

Well, Celeste and Chani and Matt and Matthew and Andre and Sandy and I and a
whole bunch of others would say it was more sexist that stupid. Did you have
a point in there? While we were unaware of his "plans", we certainly became
aware of the "pile of crap", as Chani and Celeste's comments have shown....

Ah, wait: I see. You're saying that Celeste, and Chani and I and all the
rest of us were _mistaken_ to be offended! Not having your keen insight into
Mr. Stallman's _plans_, nor sufficient grasp of the history of Western
religion in general, and Catholic doctrine in particular, we weren't sharp
enough to get what Mr. Stallman was _really_ ridiculing, and―silly us!―we
reacted in a totally inappropriate way! Wow.

Thanks for clearing that up, Patryk. Will you be at the upcoming GUADEC to
assist in interpreting the subtextual meanings of any presentations being
given there? Clearly, I, and others, incapable of figuring out what people
actually mean without your assistance. Silly us, to rely on what they _say_
rather than what they had _planned_.

In light of this, I'd like to make a formal complaint to the Board against
myself for being insufficiently psychic. I would, however, again like to ask
the Board to add a guideline to the speaker's rules insisting that speakers
must provide a detailed outline and bibliography describing what they're
actually saying and what their "plans" are, so as to "avoid
misunderstandings" in the future.

As an example, a handout describing the "Cult of Mary", the Catholic
Church's views on virginity, the history of "Saint INGUcius" and the "Church
of EMACS" along with an explanation that―since if you're ridiculing religion
you _can't_ be offensive to women, as people persist in explaining to
me―despite appearances, anyone who might feel that the jokes were somewhat
"sexist" would be mistaken, with a rundown of the reasoning behind it, and
the advice that they should develop a sense of humor if they happen not to
think the jokes funny.

In fact, including some testimonials from some of the "thousands" who have
laughed at this routine could have been quite helpful in convincing those of
us who _did_ mistakenly feel offended that we were thoroughly in error for
feeling that way!

This could have saved a lot of discomfort and unhappiness last summer. I See
A Great Need.

Let's get serious: whether you say it was "more stupid", "more sexist",
"more Lithuanian" or whatever, is fine for you. However, the fact is that
the reactions I'm describing were not unique to me, nor are they any less
relevant that your assessment―if you weren't present, they're likely _more_
relevant. Plenty of people felt similarly to the way that I do. You'd seem
to want to either deny that we felt the way we did, or get us to somehow
"admit" that our feeling the way we did was somehow "in error".

Now, unless you want to stand up and tell all of us that we were simply
_wrong_, that we cannot trust the evidence of our own senses and should rely
on yours instead, I'm not sure what relevance your individual impressions
have to do with anything.

Just for clarity: were you actually present at GCDS?

> Are you trying to start a flame war, or are you just bored? Stop
> trying to convince me that I'm defending bad behavior as I'm not.

No, and I'm not suggesting that you are, either, appearances to the contrary
notwithstanding. I'm not trying to convince you of anything: I'm trying to
explain to you that your perceptions of the situation (First-hand?
Second-hand? Third-hand?) are not authoritative with respect to others.
You'd seem, however, to be trying very hard to convince _me_ (or others, I
suppose) that I was completely wrong-headed in taking any offense at all.

> I said the rules were too vague to be considered a policy. A person
> hating Mono or C# is just as covered as a person who is a target of
> racist comments. That's why the rules are bad.

If someone is "hating" Mono in a way that's disruptive and divisive and
offensive, then that's a problem. If an anti-Mono speaker, for example,
wouldn't let a pro-Mono questioner even get a question out before telling
them they're wrong, that's would be a problem. (Oh, wait! That happened,
too, didn't it?)

> I'd add that if GNOME as a community needs a written "don't be a total
> jerk" policy, we should probably consider going to circus instead of
> the conferences ;)

Who needs to go to the circus? We've got a circus right here. With clowns.

> (rest of quotes removed to put out the flames)

Fine job, Patryk. Well done. Put 'em out again, by all means.