On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:43:53PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 16803 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Yet, would someone posting about the earth being flat, the moon landings > > being faked, or aliens being kept in various secret government > > facilities around the world have been so swiftly removed from the > > project? > > Hardly swiftly. And not to a single event. The timeline in the DAM post > he published lists it nicely, about 2 years and multiple warnings in. > That's a fair point. Perhaps "swiftly" was a mischaracterization on my part.
> And yes, if someone manages to go that way with another conspiracy > theory that directly affects people like this one did, I do believe the > outcome will be the same. The ones you list above are on the comedy side > of things. :) > I'm afraid that you miss the point. I specifically chose flat earth, & co., as a contrast. My position is that we are all adults, capable of deciding for ourselves and that, absent some behavior that is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and/or mailing list rules (e.g., harassment), simply uttering something that some people do not like does not form cause for removing someone, or even for issuing any sort of warning. Else, why bother having a Code of Conduct and mailing list rules? Thomas' behavior (note that I am not referring to his opinions, but rather the way in which he chose to express them, because the particular opinions at issue are actually not particularly relevant), was not problematic (unless you count his decision to go against DAM warnings, which in my view should not have been issued in the first place), did not directly harass anyone, and did not flood/overwhelm mailing list discussions. To me, in order for something to "directly affect" someone, that something must necessarily be directed at that person either directly or indirectly in the way of some attribute. For example, homophobic, anti-semitic, racist, and those sorts of things are commonly understood to directly affect people as a result of their identity or attributes. The things that Thomas chose to write about, while not especially relevant to Debian (though it seems to a certain extent there was a connection in his view), did not seem to "directly affect people" based on any objective (or even subjective) criteria that we might have used prior to 2020. You, on the other hand, seem to take the position that DAM (or some other authority) gets to determine what "directly affects people" and then act in response to that determination. In effect, you seem to be advocating for the practice of "thought policing". Or do I misunderstand what your position is? Can we have a clear statement of what "directly affects people"? That way members of our community can have an opportunity to determine if what they are about to say/write might be considered problematic under that criterion? Personally, I don't need DAM (or anyone else) to protect me from hearing or reading things I disagree with. However, since this seems to be an area where DAM has now demonstrated that action could be taken, it would be good to have an idea of what the parameters involved are. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
