@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?

@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.

@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.

@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?

@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.

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

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

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".

@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.".

Our CoC mandates using inclusive language including,

• Use “everybody” or “people” instead of “guys”.

We also informally refer people to heyguys.cc even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the CoC.

Unfortunately, using the particular word "guys" as an example keeps leading to a lot of debate every time someone joins the group, because "guys" is increasingly being used as a gender-neutral term. People also have differing opinions about this, leading to a more heated debate each time. (It's unfortunate that the primary example used is "guys" as that is relatively more controversial and leads people to object even if the context in which we are directing people to heyguys.cc or the CoC text is completely unrelated to the word "guys")

To avoid such repeated debates, while at the same time providing a clear explanation to newcomers while remaining welcoming and not making them feel silenced, I think it would be good to include a practical explanation of why we don't use even potentially gendered words like "guys" in our community (without going into philosophical and subjective debates). For example, this is what I wrote in the group chat recently:

[I]t's true that "guys" and "bro" can be used in a gender-neutral way and I don't see anything wrong with using it that way in groups where this is not a big issue. However, FSCI consists predominantly of people in tech circles, which have historically had low female participation. Further, it's a large public group where not everyone knows each other. That means there's a higher risk of women who joining ending up with the (not incorrect) impression that this is a male dominated group. Avoiding terms that could be misinterpreted as male-exclusive and preferring words that are more (perhaps even a bit performatively) gender-neutral is an easy way we can help these people feel more included, which is the first step to increasing women's participaton [sic] in tech (and especially Free Software) circles where they tend to feel excluded

I think heyguys.cc also addresses this in some way, but that explanation is more generic and furthermore we don't even link to it in the CoC.

Does anyone have objections to including a modified version of the above quote? We can either add a paragraph as part of the CoC as an addendum to it.