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 r.d.t.pra...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:12 PM Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.balla...@gmail.com> 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 > >
