Hi Tony, thanks for the detailed email, I totally understand the channel policy is not intended as discrimination toward the LGBT community.
I do however disagree with the suggested connotation between 'sexuality' and 'none family-friendly'. I would like to think that a conversation involving/discussing sexuality would be suitable for the '6 year old' you mentioned, sexuality != sexual. If we continue to sweep the sexuality topic under the carpet then how will things ever change? We will continue to nurture a society where any sexuality other than 'straight' is considered a taboo topic and isn't 'normal'. It was originally brought to my attention that i was treading on the channels policies toes when I asked if there were any lesbian ubuntu users in the channel as I'd intended to ask them a few questions re: discrimination. I was quickly told that the subject was not suitable and if I don't like the rules i should leave & if I continued the topic someone would help me leave. I enjoy visiting the offtopic channel and have done on and off for a couple of years. I think the op's do a fantastic job of keeping it a safe & enjoyable environment, it's just this one issue of sexuality being an no-go topic seems a little traditional, conservative & out of date to me. All the best, Jimmy *** Sparkle Interactive *** http://www.sparkleInteractive.co.uk On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Tony Yarusso <tonyyaru...@ubuntu.com>wrote: > It has come to my attention that there has been a bit of a > misunderstanding of late about the polices enforced in the > #ubuntu-offtopic IRC channel. I'm writing this note in hopes of > clarifying that a bit, and hopefully helping to settle down what has > apparently become an occasionally heated argument for some reason. I > don't particularly feel like signing up to another mailing list at the > moment, so if you deem it appropriate you are welcome to forward this > to the ubuntu-l...@launchpad.net ML as well. > > First, to clarify the position I am writing from, I am one of the > operators in that channel, and someone who has helped craft the > policies of it. I am not one of the current IRC Council members. I > am also a longtime user of that channel, having frequented it since > 2005, so I've had the opportunity to watch it evolve quite a bit. > I'll be addressing things both from the perspective of what our rules > actually say, and even more importantly, how they are enforced. > > Okay, on to addressing the points previously raised: > > Jimmy wrote: > "I was shocked when I was told in the official ubuntu IRC channels > (#ubuntu-offtopic on irc.ubuntu.com/freenode to be specific) LGBT is a > banned topic according to the channels terms of service. I think in > this day and age that's appalling, what does everyone else think?" > > It is NOT anything LGBT-related that is a banned topic of discussion, > but rather sexuality in general. It has nothing to do with anyone's > sexual orientation, but rather the fact that there's really no reason > for people to be talking about sexuality-related things on an Ubuntu > channel. This stems from the same basic "family-friendly" principles > as many other things, meaning that while the channel should be useful > to a 60-year-old, it should also be appropriate for a 6-year-old. > > Scott wrote: > "I hadn't heard about that, I'll investigate and raise this with the > community council." > > While that's all well and good, normally procedure in IRC-land is for > policies to first be discussed in #ubuntu-ops or on the > ubuntu-...@lists.ubuntu.com mailing list, which are both publicly > archived. That allows the normal transparency and openness that is > essential to our community operating effectively, as well as reaching > the full audience that it should. The Community Council operates by > contacting sub-project councils, in this case the IRC Council, which > is a small group of operators intended to handle unusual matters and > has a private mailing list, which is great for the things they usually > deal with, but not as appropriate for this in my opinion. Part of the > reason I'm addressing this e-mail to you directly is because I only > have second-hand knowledge of what has happened so far, and no way to > reply in the original medium. > > Doc wrote: > "Now, I say that, at this point, not exactly having READ it so I may > be talking out of my butt" > > Yes, it would be very much helpful to read things first. :P > > "The issue is what is banned by this policy? If I say, "My boyfriend > and I installed Ubuntu together last night and liked it" will that get > me kicked out of the channel by this policy? Because I'm a boy with a > boyfriend, is that not seen as an "LGBT topic." However, if you tried > to kick me out for saying, "My girlfriend and I installed Ubuntu..." > people would be in an uproar because no one sees anything wrong with > that." > > No, there would be no kicking for mentioning your boyfriend installing > Ubuntu. We would take issue with someone discussing sexual activities > with their partner regardless of gender (see above), but there is no > problem with mentioning the existence of such a person (and in fact > this certainly comes up with some frequency, both with the > heterosexual and the significant number of LGBT members of the > channel). Again, it is sexuality, sexual activity, and sexual > harassment that are the issue, not LGBT orientation. > > "There cannot be any LGBT policies on our lists. They are > discriminatory. There are no Black policies. There are no Jewish > policies. Why are there LGBT policies?" > > The !o4o factoid, which summarizes the topics we try to avoid, reads as > follows: > 'Some things are inappropriate for #ubuntu-offtopic. Controversial > topics, which often turn into flame wars: war, race, religion, > politics, gender, sexuality, drugs, questionably legal activities, > suicide are not for here. Please discuss these rules themselves only > in #ubuntu-ops. Microsoft software in ##windows (Please note Freenode > Policy)' > > You'll note that race and religion are also on the list. Again, this > is not anything to do with someone mentioning their own or a friend's > race or religion, but rather applies to arguments, harassment, or > belittling based on those types of topics. It has nothing to do with > which people are accepted as users in our channels (ALL are), but > rather what kind of discussions we want going on. > > "You need to have the SAME standards for Straight people and for LGBT > people." > > I believe we do. If there was ever a concern that someone had acted > otherwise, that would be something to bring up in #ubuntu-ops to be > remedied, and I would encourage you to do so if you ever felt wronged > in that way in #ubuntu-offtopic or any other channel in the main > #*ubuntu* namespace. > > "Within the spectrum of sexuality discussions, of course, if a guy and > a girl are discussion [sic] how they got it on last night, I think > that might be inappropriate to the forum, but not more so and not less > so than if two guys or two girls were discussing the same thing." > > That is precisely what we're after, yes. > > Robert wrote: > (various things) - I just want to note that he was pretty much spot on > with his responses, which I would expect, as he is also a rather > regular user of the channel. Feel free to read his note again also. > > In more general terms, I want to let you know two things about the > guidelines and policies used in the IRC channels, and #ubuntu-offtopic > in particular: > > First, they are guidelines, and generally pretty broad, with > enforcement up to the discretion of active operators. The *intent* of > the topics listed in !o4o being there is to avoid flamewars, > harassment, and people getting hurt in rather un-Ubuntu-like ways, and > enforcement follows intent. From time to time there may be a > discussion that touches on one of those, but with all of the > participants being polite and considerate while doing so, and when > that is the case it is generally allowed to continue if that remains > the case. However, when things don't look like they'll turn out well, > we try to stop it early before things get nasty. If you ever had a > concern about unfair enforcement by a particular channel operator, > that again would be an issue to take to #ubuntu-ops to discuss with > other operators. Usually if things look questionable users will be > asked to stop or take it to another channel before any kicking or > anything happens - whenever possible we try to catalyse the situation > per Freenode recommendations, and kicks are best for when things have > already gone too far or an operator shows up too late, particularly in > the offtopic channels. > > Second, they are based on experience. The operation of > #ubuntu-offtopic has gone through several cycles of being more or less > strict about the allowable topics and acceptable behavior. We would > generally prefer to be more hands-off in the channel, but current > wisdom from experience unfortunately is that it needs to be controlled > a bit more tightly, as when it has not the channel has rapidly become > more hostile and unpleasant than both the operators and regular users > cared for. > > I hope that has answered some of the questions and concerns raised > thus far. If you have others, I would be happy to address them, > either with other members of the IRC operators team in #ubuntu-ops or > privately (I'm also tonyyarusso on Freenode and always available to > /query - even if I don't respond immediately, my client is always on, > so I will eventually). > > P.S. I was unaware until recently of the existence of the ubuntu-lgbt > team, but am pleased to now see it exists. It's always nice to see > different groups of Ubuntu users coalescing, and the notion of > community interaction is I feel what really sets Ubuntu apart. > > -- > Tony Yarusso > http://tonyyarusso.com/ >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-lgbt Post to : ubuntu-lgbt@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-lgbt More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
