On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Sharan Foga <sha...@apache.org> wrote:
> *General Diversity Approach and Strategy* > I haven't had much time to update this on the wiki but once the committer > survey is complete I will be able to perhaps tailor it based on the results. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/ > Diversity+Strategy+Ideas > > I'm still interested in getting feedback and ideas from anyone about ways > to develop the strategy and actions we can take to help encourage diversity. > You should probably know by now that I will always have "negative feedback" (I am from electronics background... ;-) ) and since you are asking for it. IMVHO, you have well-intended motivations for doing this, but I only see "social justice movement" rhetoric and lack of fully thinking things through. Instead of tearing everything down, I will criticize a single thing until that is solved, before moving on to the next on the list (or simply stop). So; What does "feel safe" mean? In this context, it must be a first world non-problem. Because I doubt that you think ASF committers will be hit by drone strikes if their location is known, that an unfortunate email will cause terrorist attacks or indirectly causing thermo-nuclear war. "Safe" means that there is no imminent danger to our lives and physical health. Maslow's somewhat revised hierarchy also includes "financial security" as it quite directly affects our survival. "Safe" doesn't encompass "not feeling happy", "I was offended" and other non-sense. If you against all odds are talking about real safety; I can't imagine that anyone became more unsafe after joining ASF communities. Right? Since I am sure you will defend the "not being offended" case, I take offense that you think this is an issue. THERE! You have an unsolvable situation, and no one gives anyone the right to decide where the "line of offense" is, or being "arbitrator of happiness". Therefore; "Feelings" are highly subjective, and doesn't belong on "code of conduct" or similar lists of goals. Also, ASF has a long history of "reactive behavior" rather than prescriptive speculation. So, typically we first show what the problem is, before discussing a solution. Bring actual examples and show that these are "endorsed" by the overall consensus, and argue why it is not acceptable. That approach will be respected by highly critical people like myself. If you formulate it as; "should avoid to humiliate other people" or "try to express yourself in a friendly and inclusive language" as a guide, then I have no problem with that. Noah's suggestion of a culture of "Yes, and..." and "forgiveness" are direct, easily agreeable and doesn't need "enforcement" only "encouragement" and "highlighted" if breached. But when the undertone is "enforce... others feeling not happy..." and similar authoritarian language, then you have to wait until we old folks (with memories of Soviet Union and Mao's China) have died off. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
