<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">2014/1/20 Dave Crossland <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@lab6.com" target="_blank">dave@lab6.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi<br>
<div><br>
On 20 January 2014 02:29, "Christoph Schäfer" <<a href="mailto:christoph-schaefer@gmx.de" target="_blank">christoph-schaefer@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> male white human beings are "priviledged" and also monsters that need to be kept at bay.<br>
<br>
</div>Seems like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy</a> :)<br>
<br>
Human beings are priviledged in various ways (race, gender, age,<br>
class, ability (eg hearing ability) etc etc):<br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality</a><br>
<br>
Some human beings "need to be kept at bay":<br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct</a><br>
<br>
I'm sorry you take both these facts so emotionally, and I suggest<br>
that's not necessary. Not all people with privileged gender or race<br>
are abusive -- just some of them, and LGM ought to have a CoC to<br>
account for these 2 facts.<br>
<br>
The only objection to LGM having a CoC that I will not find fault with<br>
is 'yes but later.'<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Dear all,</div><div><br></div><div>First of all, thank you for participating in this discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>It certainly shows we have lots to say. ;-)</div>
<div><br></div><div>At this point in time I would suggest we keep further argumentation for discussion at the LGM itself. We could reserve a slot in the program for this to happen.</div><div><br></div><div>Meanwhile, I am back to my question about adopting a CoC based on the PyCon short version as edited by Greg, if we can get consensus on it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Any suggestion on how we should make the decision will be appreciated. We do not have very formal ways of deciding so it’s up to us to decide how we want to handle that.</div><div><br></div><div>Clearly, from the standpoint of a co-organiser, we need to settle this. We basically have two choices (correct me if I’m wrong):</div>
<div><br></div><div>1. No adoption of a CoC but discussion going on at LGM about this. Decision of having one (or not) taken at LGM</div><div>2. Adoption of a CoC in the coming days through this list or by other means we decide. Short version as mentionned above and discussion at LGM for further enhancements.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What do we pick?</div><div><br></div><div>Would it be ok if we make the decision with the co-organisers of this year’s LGM plus the people here who followed the discussion (in silent or not)? Any other suggestion?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks for taking the time of giving it a thought and tentatively get back before Wed. Jan 22, 18:00 "Central Europe Time" (when to co-organisers have an IRC meeting).</div><div><br></div><div>
An online poll might help gather the answers? Can someone put it together?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers!</div><div><br></div><div>Louis</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Cheers<br>
Dave<br>
</font></span><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
CREATE mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>