Code of Conduct publihsed at https://fsci.in/code-of-conduct/

@Arya K we are not expected to provide a platform for people opposing us to express their ideas. They are free to build their own platforms to express their ideas. Our group is created with an aim to promote Free Software. Do you think a political party is expected to create a stage, arrange mike, bring all their supporters and invite their opponent to speak? We are not opposing their right to express in their own forums or in personal spaces. FSCI discussion groups are not like Twitter or Mastodon, it is created for collaboration on shared values and interests.

@Arya K Do you think Microsoft should allow us to talk about Free Software in their office conference hall and invite all employees to listen to a talk by RMS? If they don't do this are they suppressing Free Speech?

@Pirate Praveen like this? https://stallman.org/articles/microsoft-talk.html

@Akshay I did not know about this, but by extension, all other proprietary companies that did not invite RMS, say Adobe or Meta, is now censoring Free Software? On the contrary, if RMS went uninvited and was refused entry, does that prove Microsoft is censoring?

@Pirate Praveen @Arya K I don't believe in the "free speech" argument. Freedom of speech applies in a democracy (like India, USA, etc). In organizations, groups, etc which are formed for a purpose, speech can and must be curtailed towards the realization of the goals. This is the same reason why a CoC exists — to tell people what kind of conduct (including speech) is unacceptable. But on the other hand, if the argument is "diversity of thought" that's an argument that I support very much. As in the example of Microsoft & RMS. Being able to listen to a diverse set of views is an amazing strength.

@Akshay don't you think, inviting someone and listening is a different thing that keeping the door open for anyone to come and talk whatever they want?

@Pirate Praveen Yes, but if you say Arya Kiran is talking about inviting people, your analogy is broken.

@Akshay Keeping the door open is a bigger action than inviting someone. So how is the analogy broken? If you are not even open to invite someone to talk at a specific time and place, then you won't be keeping the door open either for anyone to come and talk any time. What Microsoft did is a good thing, I don't disagree. But is Microsoft or every proprietary company expected to do it? And are they censoring if they did not invite RMS? I think you took the analogy to a different level by sharing that photo.

@Arya K Imagine somebody simply posting things and making claims without engaging in any meaningful conversation. Would that be an issue of silencing opinions?

i'm sorry to see such a proposal which seems fundamentally very wrong to me. i kindly request those who support this not to take any of my arguments/opinions personally.

as someone who has gone through the recent discussions in FSCI matrix/xmpp room, what i infer is that the problem is not with promoting whatsapp (or proprietary software in general) but the way it is done. it can happen with any other discussions regardless of the topic, for eg. tomorrow someone may come and keep saying that a free software application X is bad without properly responding to any attempts to refute their claims. so will we amend our CoC again to prevent people from degrading free software?

the alleged person's discussions which led to this proposal had elements which resemble the patterns used by trolls. @fugata had already pointed this out in a thread here. honestly, at that time, i was still in favor of giving them benefit of doubt. but later i found out that they kept following that pattern which could've been used as a reason to ban them for "sustained disruption of discussion". not trying to blame anyone here as i wasn't also able to interfere on time then.

why i see this as fundamentally wrong is when i look at it from a broader perspective. we're living in a time when hate, intolerance and othering is used in a large scale like never before, which is especially true in a country like ours that stands out as bad example for how to handle dissent. FSCI is a public group which follows democratic decision-making (such as the current proposal being discussed). as such a group, i believe we can do better. @Snehal Shekatkar already mentioned that "disagreement wasn't the main issue". a proposal like this which tries to silence dissent gives a very wrong message.

free software philosophy is based on sharing and caring. i believe it thrives in an environment that nurtures love and kindness. let's be nice to each other, be kind as long as there's enough room for it. i'm more in favor of blocking this proposal, but it's a form of using power. instead of that, i'd like to see if we can talk this out without dismissing the concerns raised.

@Pirate Bady I agree with the overall stand. I would also change my vote and block this proposal if @Pirate Praveen admits that disagreement wasn't the main issue that started the whole thing. It is most unfortunate that @Ravi Dwivedi @fugata and myself tried very hard to convince Praveen about this, but he somehow thinks that having these changes to the CoC would stop such behavior. And I hope @bvul also admits their mistake and agrees to refrain from trolling in their future posts. If this happens, I would be more than happy to join the XMPP room again.

@Snehal Shekatkar my point is, the fundamental disagreement about value of Free Software in ensuring privacy, means any number of questioning was not going to resolve the difference or make both side happy with the explanation. Any further debate would only result in repeating the arguments. This is what I observed and hence I suggested we move that debate to codema.in which has a different pace and visibility/filtering options.

@fugata I believe constructive discussion is not possible when there is a fundamental disagreement on the axioms and we can only say we agree to disagree. When one side believes Free Software is not necessary for privacy and another believes Free Software is essential for privacy, any discussion will not change the other person's mind after the arguments are laid out once.

@Pirate Bady I believe the sustained disruption happened when people pushed for a different answer from bvul5 which was not going to happen any number of times the question was repeated. I don't think there was any other way for bvul5 to respond after making their position clear that they don't think Free Software is essential for privacy, for them WhatsApp being audited was enough. So I strongly think the reason why the discussion dragged on is because of a fundamental disagreement on basic axioms itself, which cannot be solved through etiquette. We will have to make a choice, which of those axioms we care about. Unless we pick a side, I don't think this dispute can be settled.

@Pirate Bady the question is about setting limits to philosophies that are opposite to what we share as values. Do we want this to happen every day and every hour and bind us to giving explanations to every question? This group is like a stage and audience. Are we obligated to offer this stage and audience to people opposing our views? We are not saying defending WhatsApp should be banned, we are just saying we don't want to be debating that topic _all the time_, any time people choose to open it. Allowing new people to make this argument is like a balancing act, there may be points we missed, but we don't want only that debate happen all the time. So when do we tell someone to stop?

@bvul the point is not about silencing you, you made your point and we want to allow new people to make this point. But should we allow them to repeat this in every thread? Should we allow people to hijack every discussion to be a discussion about merits of WhatsApp? Should we be forced to respond to this topic every single day?

@Pirate Bady @fugata @Snehal Shekatkar feel free to make another proposal focusing on specific behavior. This proposal was based on my understanding of the problem and solution. As for this proposal, this won't pass if we fail to build consensus here or in permanent members sub group (kind of like a General Resolution) in Debian where only official members vote. This group is more like debian-devel and open to everyone, which is only good if we can get consensus. As for permanent members sub group, if we fail to make a consensus there too, each of us will have to make a tough decision - let go of it or try and make a new community with a specific choice on this question a part of its core values (just laying out the options on the table, not necessarily suggesting a fork). Like how Prav has chosen XMPP among XMPP vs Matrix vs Signal debate.

@bvul So you want us to react to you everyday in the group? If you believe that WA is better then it is enough to discuss it for a day or two and stop it. You can't keep talking against people who believe in Free software repeatedly in a group meant to promote Free software. Moreover, you seriously lack basic etiquette for a constructive discussion, and hence your other arguments are useless unless you improve upon this most important thing.

@Pirate Praveen please read what @Snehal Shekatkar said in the reply to my last message which also mentions you. you still think that disagreement is the main issue while it was repeatedly stated that it's not the case.

people with different opinions can still choose to engage in healthy discussions. so difference of opinion is not the issue, the elements which lower the quality of discussion are. @fugata has phrased this issue well:

Repeatedly parroting one's beliefs and ignoring/mocking/talking past others' questions/responses is antithetical to constructive discussion.

^ this is the issue. it's similar to the pattern used in sealioning. whatever you try to solve without understanding that is like solving XY problem. before replying to your comments above, i'd like to know whether you acknowledge this. without that i don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

@Pirate Bady if we don't make philosophical choice, then bvul5 can also argue the same thing - repeating/parroting by the other side. Constructive discussions cannot resolve fundamental philosophical differences. Only when there is a common ground and shared axioms, a debate can be constructive.

if we don't make philosophical choice, then bvul5 can also argue the same thing - repeating/parroting by the other side.

parroting alone isn't the issue, that along with disrupting the discussion by constantly ignoring or sidestepping any attempts to counter the arguments is. if it's done by anyone, regardless of what philosophy they adhere to, it's a problem and needs to be discouraged. current proposal doesn't address this, that's why i said it's like solving XY problem.

Only when there is a common ground and shared axioms, a debate can be constructive.

well, isn't it really a narrow-minded view to consider only people without difference of opinions can engage in healthy debates? if there's already a common ground, what's the point of debating?

@Pirate Bady does repeatedly saying "only if something is free software any claim about it can be considered to be true" get considered as constantly ignoring counter-arguments?

@Pirate Bady is debating the primary goal of fsci? Even when debating, there are rules of debates, there are specific time allotted to each side, there is a moderator, who is supposed to be neutral etc Look at USA presidential debates. In my view, this community is about achieving common goals based on a shared understanding of Free Software. Any fundamentally different philosophy will need to build its own community. As a community working together on shared values, we have to set limits for our community. For example Indian Pirates has a different set of core values and limits. When I participate in both communities, I have to respect its limits. This is not about censorship, but setting limits to achieve some shared goals. If we don't set any limits, we can easily lose focus.

@Akshay i can answer your question. but may i know if anything i said sounded ambiguous to you? asking this because if you understood what i said, you would've been able to answer it yourself. so i wonder what made you ask that.

@Pirate Bady Because I've seen people do that without being discouraged.

@Akshay did they constantly repeat same/similar statements without trying to justify why? did they do so by not properly responding to any/most of the attempts to counter their arguments reasonably?

TBH, i failed to notice such behavior from those who support free software. maybe it's because of my bias, i understand it can happen and it's a problem too. i can try to be more vigilant from now on by keeping this in mind, is there anything more/else you want me or our group as whole to do about it?

I mean if someone want to boast about Watsapp, they can go the off topic groups or other group n boast about it. The function of FSCI main group is to discuss and give support for Free Software. I mean nobody is censoring anyone, its just one has to act according the purpose/description of a room. I mean thats the civil thing to do.

If someone spamming with off topic so it affects other on topic discussions, the person has to be removed from the room or may be temporarily ban them.

And its already mentioned in point 4 in https://fsci.in/code-of-conduct/#actions-to-increase-representation

is debating the primary goal of fsci?

@Pirate Praveen this can be considered as red herring fallacy. i didn't say debating is the primary goal, i was only trying to counter your arguments about having healthy debates.

now coming back to the topic, your proposal actually contains two parts: prevent "defending" and "promoting" proprietary software. the "promotion" part comes under off-topic as @Kannan V M and @Abhijith PA tried to point out and it's already covered in the CoC. about the "defending" part, just like some other points already in CoC, it is difficult to judge regarding where to draw the line. for eg. if someone says xmpp is not so hard to use and someone else replies "but my grandparents find whatsapp more easy to use", will that be considered as "defending proprietary software" that warrants a ban? IMO, unless really necessary, it's better to avoid making the moderation process more harder by adding such clauses.

the proposal already has 4 block votes including one from a permanent member. the reason why i'm still arguing against it is to see if we can get back @Snehal Shekatkar and @fugata to join back. @Pirate Praveen if you acknowledge the original issue raised by them, instead of just defending this proposal as the only solution to the problem you see, i hope they'll join back. on an other note, the one who triggered all this discussions is now banned for spreading hate speech.

@Pirate Bady as mentioned in the other proposal. All violations of CoC are not of equal severity, so the more explicit we are about each class of violations, at least those we think as serious and will result in a ban, that has to be explicit.

This probably fits in a faq section rather than a coc.

@pirate king faq would have been fine if people were not pushing for a ban. CoC is more powerful tool for making a decision. I don't think we can resolve this without taking a side.

@Pirate Praveen then does it go through a warning phase and then ban?

Yes, first step will be a warning. Only if they continue, ignoring the warning, ban will be considered.

The proposed addition to CoC is not saying we need to show zero tolerance to proprietary software discussions in FSCI rooms/groups but rather promoting/defending it. I believe this a basic understanding of any group that formed on a common interest. I don't think we need to be that explicit.

What sane person will join a chat room titled "Free Software" and then promote proprietary software in it multiple times. I think then that person's only interest it to troll or ridicule other group members.

The way this alleged person conducted in the chatroom, I don't think if it make any difference if they was promoting "WeeChat".

@Abhijith PA do you think entire Free Software community is using only Free Software already? There are many Free Software communities on proprietary platforms. I wish it was natural for Free Software communities to use only Free Software, but we don't see that in practice. So making explicit boundaries help people participating in our forums.

@Akshay Looks like enforcement related part is not needed. I am removing that line. The idea of this amendment is to strengthen section 6.4, "Try to stay on topic, especially in discussions that are already fairly large.".