Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 7:28 AM Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:

In my model, the bar for excluding an individual, particularly at the beginning is very low.

* We expect people to agree to the social contract.
That's a big exclusion; a lot of people don't care about those
principles.

* We require people to agree to the CoC; that's another big bar.

* At various levels of involvement we work to confirm people are
willing to follow these things to various degrees.

In effect, we have a bunch of exclusions for making the community more welcoming, because over all in aggregate doing that creates a more
inclusive community.

A community with a low bar for expulsion is not inclusive. It is selective.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Gerardo" == Gerardo Ballabio <[email protected]> writes:

Gerardo> Debian is a community that strives to be open, fair and
Gerardo> inclusive. That means that we have made a commitment to
Gerardo> welcome everybody and not exclude anyone without good
Gerardo> reasons.

I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive. However,
for me that means something different than you say in your second
sentence. To me that means we've committed to being open to as large a
cross section of people--as diverse a cross section of people as
possible.

The difference in how we interpret things is whether we're focused on
the individual or the aggregate affect.
In my model, the bar for excluding an individual, particularly at the
beginning is very low.

* We expect people to agree to the social contract.
That's a big exclusion; a lot of people don't care about those
principles.

* We require people to agree to the CoC; that's another big bar.

* At various levels of involvement we work to confirm people are
willing to follow these things to various degrees.

In effect, we have a bunch of exclusions for making the community more welcoming, because over all in aggregate doing that creates a more
inclusive community.

This is in contrast to having a community where we set the bar for
excluding any given individual as high as possible.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sam Hartman wrote:

I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive. However, for me that means something different than you say in your second sentence. To me that means we've committed to being open to as large a cross section of people--as diverse a

cross section of people as possible.

The difference in how we interpret things is whether we're focused on

the individual or the aggregate affect.

It seems indeed that we may have a different concept of inclusion. For
me, you aren't really being inclusive if you aren't welcoming all
people, not just those who increase a cross section. And you aren't
really welcoming a group if you aren't welcoming every individual
member of that group.

That doesn't mean that Debian should be forced to keep people who
misbehave (don't respect the CoC) or don't align with its core mission
(don't respect the Social Contract). As I see it, that is a completely different issue.

But this is deviating from the point that I was trying to make, that
is, that Debian can't use the "we are a private group" argument as a
waiver from the (moral, if not legal) obligation to treat people
fairly (and I read your original message as acknowledging the need for
fair treatment, so I thought we were on the same side). So forgive me
if I don't want to go further on this subthread.

Gerardo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Felix Lechner <[email protected]> writes:

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 7:28 AM Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:

In my model, the bar for excluding an individual, particularly at the
beginning is very low.

* We expect people to agree to the social contract.
That's a big exclusion; a lot of people don't care about those
principles.

* We require people to agree to the CoC; that's another big bar.

* At various levels of involvement we work to confirm people are
willing to follow these things to various degrees.

In effect, we have a bunch of exclusions for making the community more
welcoming, because over all in aggregate doing that creates a more
inclusive community.

A community with a low bar for expulsion is not inclusive. It is selective.

AFAIK we average about an expulsion a decade, so how much higher a bar
do you want to set for expulsions?

BTW I would interpret this mail of yours as pointlessly argumentative,
which strikes me as a continuation of the pattern that others have
pointed out. Please give it a rest now.

Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3/FBWs4yJ/zyBwfW0EujoAEl1cAFAmIUoroACgkQ0EujoAEl 1cBmWw//QyEqeEj0erkP2RuJmZXYC/SXdKUVWMgGf/0sPObNfh+e3S2NAgsiHhcJ ZVPS0b+CJ0d46TpwWNiJc5vV9uPZRSY8EPadvGFSBtC/ZpoIhuFlbaGRryraa+MV IBP6PjtG4SCo1otFnYy3yHOTyCd2pxPmp2sqOfLR/5W9fBHd56LhLxuAtfNyaLdV nTg3N7V+yZmbd4PTOlRL9nDEUpmOc8sayxhbDG3MehhxzUugJ2dXhoMLcSFEygMo kfbwqcSiiLPkQPpReFoomeG+1amhaeObQhHFAOSu3XoN5aaYyh0LPEwfoq9hn/jH e8On/ii8Y/RXt57QyiVQMrApVAKbT1H2jr0codMJybFiwTMVpWVKXLoxg0sT5IuT 3w2iSr2+VyllJGYnbRliPGhZr36euNXQMWNypTdsbG21bvtJOoWaBBK/QdXNLfZI p3DA6tVfAdZmLWTchBbz6wrTjmgmrebdHMDEayB5lZR30mKUaQrMT6zSdjFmpvtS 3AeM7miz0gb0v4rmIlBNJ8oy0yOurkoA9zFGuQNUyuuvncdkrW7uMpdwQr7p5v1G nF2G0o+x5WisrqJhE8yQlyzLbOwkHQinlPRW1wiLUtGSUQ/ogpqn9o45ez+fBRNW VkFc/+RI3eKM2Bz

For me, inclusion means working with everyone to make Debian as useful an operating system as possible for as many people as possible. I love that
Debian is one of the *only* Linux distributions that has a good
accessibility wiki, plays the beep to allow me, a blind person, to press s
then enter to start the installer with speech. I also love that Mate,
pretty much the only really accessible desktop environment out there, is selectable in the installer. I do wish accessibility was more of a priority
for more package maintainers, like Thunderbird, which is really slow to use with Orca when there are lots of emails in a folder, or Steam, KDE, Gnome, stuff like that. But that's not really up to Debian.
Devin Prater
[email protected]




On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:12 PM Gerardo Ballabio <[email protected]> wrote:

Sam Hartman wrote:

I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive. However,

for me that means something different than you say in your second
sentence. To me that means we've committed to being open to as large a
cross section of people--as diverse a cross section of people as possible.

The difference in how we interpret things is whether we're focused on

the individual or the aggregate affect.

It seems indeed that we may have a different concept of inclusion. For
me, you aren't really being inclusive if you aren't welcoming all
people, not just those who increase a cross section. And you aren't
really welcoming a group if you aren't welcoming every individual
member of that group.

That doesn't mean that Debian should be forced to keep people who
misbehave (don't respect the CoC) or don't align with its core mission
(don't respect the Social Contract). As I see it, that is a completely different issue.

But this is deviating from the point that I was trying to make, that
is, that Debian can't use the "we are a private group" argument as a
waiver from the (moral, if not legal) obligation to treat people
fairly (and I read your original message as acknowledging the need for
fair treatment, so I thought we were on the same side). So forgive me
if I don't want to go further on this subthread.

Gerardo

<div dir="ltr">For me, inclusion means working with everyone to make Debian as useful an operating system as possible for as many people as possible. I love that Debian is one of the *only* Linux distributions that has a good accessibility wiki, plays
the beep to allow me, a blind person, to press s then enter to start the installer with speech. I also love that Mate, pretty much the only really accessible desktop environment out there, is selectable in the installer. I do wish accessibility was more
of a priority for more package maintainers, like Thunderbird, which is really slow to use with Orca when there are lots of emails in a folder, or Steam, KDE, Gnome, stuff like that. But that&#39;s not really up to Debian.<br clear="all"><div><div dir="
ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Devin Prater</div><div><a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected]</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><
/div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:12 PM Gerardo Ballabio &lt;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Sam Hartman wrote:<br>
&gt; I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive. However, for me that means something different than you say in your second sentence.  To me that means we&#39;ve committed to being open to as large a cross section of people--as
diverse a cross section of people as possible.<br>

&gt; The difference in how we interpret things is whether we&#39;re focused on<br>
the individual or the aggregate affect.<br>

It seems indeed that we may have a different concept of inclusion. For<br>
me, you aren&#39;t really being inclusive if you aren&#39;t welcoming all<br> people, not just those who increase a cross section. And you aren&#39;t<br> really welcoming a group if you aren&#39;t welcoming every individual<br> member of that group.<br>

That doesn&#39;t mean that Debian should be forced to keep people who<br> misbehave (don&#39;t respect the CoC) or don&#39;t align with its core mission<br>
(don&#39;t respect the Social Contract). As I see it, that is a completely<br> different issue.<br>

But this is deviating from the point that I was trying to make, that<br>
is, that Debian can&#39;t use the &quot;we are a private group&quot; argument as a<br>
waiver from the (moral, if not legal) obligation to treat people<br>
fairly (and I read your original message as acknowledging the need for<br>
fair treatment, so I thought we were on the same side). So forgive me<br>
if I don&#39;t want to go further on this subthread.<br>

Gerardo<br>

</blockquote></div>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[Busy ? Read the two first lines of each paragraph and skip the rest.]

What is inclusion ?

For me, inclusion means taking care of letting everybody participate.
Aspects of this related with expressing ourselves in a more careful way
in order to avoid hurting others have been amply expressed already. I
fully agree and am grateful that participating to Debian opened my eyes
in many ways.

What I would like to tell today is that building a participative
consensus requires to give an opportunity to all to contribute to the discussion. The contrary of this is to rely on spearhead groups to
prepare a set of well-thought alternatives and ask people to pick their preference by themselves following their own sense of justice and
intellect. This is cleaving.

In a participative environment, the pace of consensus building is
adjusted to the speed of the community. After making a good suggestion
to your family, friends or colleagues, have you never refrained from
making another one, because you felt that somebody else would do it, and everybody will be happier if the credit for making a good move is more
widely shared ?

In contrary, on the main Debian lists, there is little attention to this
aspect of inclusivity. Often, people who take care of family members,
who can contribute only on week-ends or only on business days, who were
sick that day or celebrating important moments of their life, etc., or
simply are not as comfortable as others in writing English, are left out
by spark threads where a couple of good points are made by a few core
people, and dilluted by a pile of casual conversations, arguments,
fights for having the last words, etc, rendering the whole topic closed,
and giving the feeling that nobody is going to listen to what is said by
people coming too late if they do not have a big name.

I already wrote it too much, but I want to reiterate my call to refrain
to post more than once a day in our main mailing lists.

Have a nice day!

Charles

--
Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Devin,
thank you very much for your response.
I guess we were restricting our focus to Debian contributors. You add
the point of view of users, which widens the perspective.
In that context the "increase the cross section" discourse indeed
makes sense, because we need not worry about people whose needs are
already being covered, they're already fine with us. Rather, we can
concentrate our efforts on those who actually need improvements.
And the insight of people with specific needs is important to help us
figure what those needs are and how they can be solved. In this sense,
a user who gives feedback is already a contributor.

You have my sympathy for your accessibility needs. Unfortunately, the
only package I'm currently maintaining is a Tetris-like game and I'm
afraid it can't be playable at all without sight, but if I'm mistaken
on that and there's anything I can do to make it more accessible, I
look forward to your suggestions (feel free to contact me off list).

Gerardo

Il giorno mar 22 feb 2022 alle ore 16:22 Devin Prater
<[email protected]> ha scritto:

For me, inclusion means working with everyone to make Debian as useful an operating system as possible for as many people as possible. I love that Debian is one of the *only* Linux distributions that has a good accessibility wiki, plays the beep to

allow me, a blind person, to press s then enter to start the installer with speech. I also love that Mate, pretty much the only really accessible desktop environment out there, is selectable in the installer. I do wish accessibility was more of a
priority for more package maintainers, like Thunderbird, which is really slow to use with Orca when there are lots of emails in a folder, or Steam, KDE, Gnome, stuff like that. But that's not really up to Debian.

Devin Prater
[email protected]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:12 PM Gerardo Ballabio <[email protected]> wrote:

Sam Hartman wrote:

I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive. However, for me that means something different than you say in your second sentence. To me that means we've committed to being open to as large a cross section of people--as diverse a

cross section of people as possible.

The difference in how we interpret things is whether we're focused on

the individual or the aggregate affect.

It seems indeed that we may have a different concept of inclusion. For
me, you aren't really being inclusive if you aren't welcoming all
people, not just those who increase a cross section. And you aren't
really welcoming a group if you aren't welcoming every individual
member of that group.

That doesn't mean that Debian should be forced to keep people who
misbehave (don't respect the CoC) or don't align with its core mission
(don't respect the Social Contract). As I see it, that is a completely
different issue.

But this is deviating from the point that I was trying to make, that
is, that Debian can't use the "we are a private group" argument as a
waiver from the (moral, if not legal) obligation to treat people
fairly (and I read your original message as acknowledging the need for
fair treatment, so I thought we were on the same side). So forgive me
if I don't want to go further on this subthread.

Gerardo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)