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
