Create an Inclusion Policy for FSCI
Pirate Bady
Public
Seen by 149
I would like to suggest to create an Inclusion Policy so as to make our community more welcoming to everyone.
Akshay Fri 12 Apr 2024 5:30PM
@Pirate Praveen Yes, but if you say Arya Kiran is talking about inviting people, your analogy is broken.
Pirate Praveen Fri 12 Apr 2024 5:36PM
@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.
Snehal Shekatkar
Fri 12 Apr 2024 3:42PM
The user bvul5 because of whom this poll has started has been very successful in dividing the community and making it look like a free speech issue as @Arya K thinks it is. If you follow messages on the group going back two days, you will realize that at least three members, myself included, were insisting that disagreement wasn't the main issue but that the user wasn't following reasonable chat etiquettes.
fugata
Fri 12 Apr 2024 3:42PM
As others have said, staying open to criticism is important. Those who disagree may come to agree and are therefore potential allies - thus, we should not block them for having different perspectives, but only as long as they are willing to participate in a constructive discussion (or be quiet spectators). Repeatedly parroting one's beliefs and ignoring/mocking/talking past others' questions/responses is antithetical to constructive discussion, and that is what the rules should focus on.
Snehal Shekatkar Sat 13 Apr 2024 6:20AM
@Arya K Imagine somebody simply posting things and making claims without engaging in any meaningful conversation. Would that be an issue of silencing opinions?
Pirate Bady Sat 13 Apr 2024 10:49AM
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 Sat 13 Apr 2024 11:01AM
@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.
bvul
Fri 12 Apr 2024 3:42PM
disagree, This proposal is overbroad, speech restricting. It makes for closed mind and dogmatism. It is not about how this proposal was started(allegedly due to me arguing for whatsapp/ being continuous with it). It lacks the nuances of comparisons, (arguing due to better model, mis/dis-information, featureset, better particular features, for overall betterment of everyone. It forbids playing devil's advocate and introspection.
Pirate Praveen Sat 13 Apr 2024 2:27PM
@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.
Pirate Praveen · Fri 12 Apr 2024 5:19PM
@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?