Re: Proposal: DNS change irc.gnome.org becomes A record and irc.gimpnet.org starts getting phased out.

[Tristan Van Berkom <tvb gnome org>]

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Hashem Nasarat <hnasarat gmail com> wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 12:27 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Sumana Harihareswara
> > <sumanah panix com> wrote:
> > > On 05/10/2013 10:17 AM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
> > > > Seriously, can everyone relax and not take every little detail so
> > > > seriously? I'm all for advertising irc.gnome.org in our websites etc.
> > > > But there's really no need to take down DNS entries and whatnot.
> > > It's sort of odd for a member of a software organization to advocate
> > > being less serious about details.  We have a bug tracker because details
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Asking others to "relax" implies that other people are working too hard
> > > or caring too much about an issue, as though it is unimportant.
> > > Different issues are important to different people and it's a bit
> > > annoying to be told to "relax" about what matters to you.
> > >
> > > > On 10 May 2013 15:55, meg ford <meg387 gmail com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm saying that it's an I18n issue. I recently read that the GNOME foot is
> > > > > insulting in Thailand so we are trying not to use it there.
> > > > And this why you can't ever win. There will always be something that's
> > > > offensive for someone in this planet so yeah just don't bother too
> > > > much.
> > > If by "win" you mean "get a special permanent I AM NOT OFFENSIVE
> > > designation from the United Nations," no, you can't "win".  However, as
> > > a person deciding where to spend my time and what organizations to take
> > > seriously, I will say that organizations that make some efforts to act
> > > sensitively "win" my time and attention.
> > See here is a very interesting conflict.
> >
> > Some of us think that we should be very careful about what words we
> > choose to represent GNOME, to the point of even renaming things in
> > GNOME because "someone might be offended".
> It's not just because there might exist one who is offended, it's about
> not being improper.

But how do you define "improper" ?

Below you make the argument that there is a 'spectrum' of what 'is'
or 'is not' proper.

Defining a spectrum for what is 'proper' or not, based on content
alone, is going to leave little room for grey area, and little room
for any expression at all. Saying anything at all becomes like walking
in a mine field (maybe political leaders have to stoop to this level
of political correctness, but I don't think an open community of free
software enthusiasts signed up for this).

I hope you recognize at least that this expectation from our
contributors is something that seriously raises the bar of entry
(as specially since we can't expect that most contributors even
speak english as a first language, or that people will just 'know'
what content is 'proper' or not).

My opinion is only that 'properness' of content (be it something
that someone expressed, or the name of something) should be
judged for it's intent and in context, not just for the content itself.

Example: when we are a the zoo in South America...
I can say "let's go see the monkeys", even though in parts of
South America the term 'monkey' can be a harsh racist term.

People have common sense, they know that since we are at the zoo,
there actually are monkeys to go see.

Best Regards,
    -Tristan

> > Like it or not, the decisions we make at this scope has an undertone,
> > what is appropriate for an IRC network name, eventually becomes what
> > is appropriate for a program name, or even a program's release name,
> > and eventually what is appropriate to write in emails on our mailing lists
> > and what is appropriate to post in our blogs.
> Already there is a spectrum of what is and is not appropriate. It's not
> appropriate, for example, to name projects in ways that allude to
> abortion, the holocaust, slavery etc. GNOME is a Free Software
> community, and should stick to that.
> > One the one hand, you have the theory that "being very careful" is
> > an attitude which makes GNOME appear more welcoming, and on
> > the other hand, "being very careful" is exactly the opposite.
> It makes GNOME more welcoming to some people, while simultaneously
> asking more of others.
> > Would you like to join a community where everything you say is
> > under strict scrutiny ? where you cannot freely express yourself
> > in your blog without being really careful to make all of your comments
> > "gender neutral" and politically correct ?
> This is the Internet. Everything you say is public and subject to strict
> scrutiny. Again there is a spectrum of what is and is not appropriate.
> The topic at hand is really getting at where to delineate this spectrum
> -- who gets to say what is appropriate, and whose sensibilities are
> taken into account.
> > Or would you rather be a part of a community where people are
> > a bit more "relaxed" and laid back, where you can just be yourself,
> > express yourself freely, assume that people mean well and not
> > be afraid that you will be accused for expressing yourself in a way
> > that might be misconstrued ?
> If I was a casual racist, sexist, ableist, etc. it would probably be
> easiest to fit in a community that did not recognize such things as
> problematic. Should GNOME be yet another space for these people to fit
> in without being questioned, or should GNOME push its community to
> become better?
> > If one were to say that irc.gimp.net refers to 'gimp' and is intentionally
> > rude, that would definitely count as misconstrued, do we really
> > want to set an example to gnome contributors that anything they
> > say in our public infrastructure might be frowned upon, just because
> > it could be taken out of context in some way ?
> It's not taken out of context, it's just inappropriate. Replace 'gimp'
> with a racial slur, and it may be easier to understand. We want to set
> an example that GNOME strives to be socially conscious and inclusive of
> all walks of life.
> > Personally I am (obviously) of the camp which would rather
> > have a "relaxed" and laid back attitude.
> "relaxed" seems to me to mean unchallenged. If the wrong aren't
> challenged, this is a problem.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list