@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.