@paulfree14 @emerican I have drafted a brainstorming document to start the code of conduct workshop. It specifically says that it's for brainstorming and is not final. We're trying to make decisions together. I'm disappointed you'd make broad statements on something before it's been worked on.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gSaYF4D31DWVtY7qMeRVsI0Ht5tULT7pudFR_e5EHSs/edit?usp=sharing

Sorry, I should have used a CW here.

@stephen @paulfree14 I was just chiming in, said "if," not trying to make any sweeping statements. Just think it's important to not scare off anarchists with language that makes it seem like dissidence wouldn't be tolerated, unintentionally or otherwise. Didn't mean to be overly damning with my comment, if that's how it read.

@emerican @paulfree14 Thanks Emerican. We're trying very hard. But it may end up being that the language included is too prohibitive for anarchists. Tbh, I'm not sure what either of you mean by "disrupting" or "dissidence" in the line about about not "promoting the oppression of marginalized groups." Certainly I will advocate for people to express their opinions safely, but not if it includes hate speech. #ParadoxOfTolerance

@stephen @paulfree14 So to clarify, I was responding solely to @paulfree14 with my comment, hadn't seen/known about the published docs when I chimed in. I agree that nobody should be allowed to bully marginalized people and think that's critical, as well. I admittedly shot my mouth off without full context, just wanted to make the blanket statement that if "disruption" in and of itself is prohibited then a lot of leftists won't be interested -(1 of 2)

@stephen @paulfree14 But if that's not in the doc then mia culpa, just consider it my two cents that we should be careful not to appear too authoritarian with any language. I'll bow out of the convo now until I've had time to read the docs more carefully, now that I see them (2 of 2)

@stephen
it just reads, that disruption won't be tolerated. It doesn't give a reason, nor says disruption against what.

If a group chooses binary majority voting leading to a desicion that I believe to be harmfull, but through the defined process of forming that desicion I'm not able to express myself in a way I believe is required, I will disrupt the process.

@emerican

@paulfree14 @emerican I haven't heard anyone propose binary majority voting for decisions. If they did, I would argue against it. I see that your concern is to protect people to express themselves. But, as I said, I don't see how that relates to the line you quoted. I do hear that you think it's important that diverse opinions may be heard. I agree. But, what I'm asking you, is to please be careful in making blanket statements about what's "embedded in the document" this early.

@emerican @stephen
>I haven't heard anyone propose binary majority voting for decisions

me neither. I just made a example, so it's easier to understand what I'm tryn to express.

>I'm asking you, is to please be careful in making blanket statements about what's "embedded in the document" this early.

I don't understand what you mean here.

@paulfree14

I thought you were quoting the oppression line to say "this line is silencing dissent." Now I see you meant your screenshot. I will bring this issue up. To me, preventing the oppression of marginalized groups takes precedence over silencing disruptive people. Moderator accountability will be a crucial inclusion in the document. I'd welcome your feedback or ideas in the brainstorming document if you have more notes.

@stephen
>preventing the oppression of marginalized groups takes precedence over silencing disruptive people.

I find that being missleading since disruption can be a tool to counter opression. Anarchists tend to use it for this purpose.

@paulfree14 "Disruption" is a little too abstract of a concept for me to understand in this context. As I said, preventing and countering oppression is the more important principle, at least in my mind. That's what I mean by taking precedence. To some degree, explicitly talking about how to hold moderators accountable should be able to account for this. I will try to propose new language for that segment, if I have time.

@stephen @paulfree14 just a caveat on the term 'disruption': it has recently become quite a negative one in my personal experience, in the context of technology at least, if intended in a positive sense, as a way to bring up challenging a status quo detrimental to marginalized communities, perhaps a different word would be better. I'm thinking of Silicon Valley startup clichés here, to give an example, where disruption usually means tech-bros assholery..

@lichen
>I'm thinking of Silicon Valley startup clichés here, to give an example, where disruption usually means tech-bros assholery.

many people follow and obey to them. That is what serves them power.
Disruption is irritating a system, even when it's just for a moment. Where those moments spark, we can be given the chance to break out of routine daylife, that serves in most cases a system of structural opression.
@stephen

@paulfree14 I see what you mean, there's no doubt that structural oppression should be questioned, but sticking to the term I was just observing how it's practically being used.. and, at least in a tech context, the disruption efforts, even when genuinely sparkled from good intentions, too often prove to backfire terribly when there's lack of a diverse and rich community culture (this diversity and inclusiveness is basically what the fork is about tbh, in my understanding) @stephen

@lichen
'every' activist seems to use disruption as one of their strategies. It's also very comonly used in this context.

related to tech, this collective regular brings out a zine called disrupt.
It's about pushing back against opression incl. to use tech as a tool to do so.
https://capulcu.blackblogs.org/english/

...but yes, there might still be a better term.
@stephen

@lichen
>this diversity and inclusiveness is basically what the fork is about...

What I have observed it's not. The first meeting was very predefined, incl. the exclusion of ppl from the organisational process that led to the first meating.

#forkofftogether
#forkofffeedback

@stephen

@lichen
For giving feedback people went defensive and offensive, without even really countering made arguments.

I felt being pushed out for having a different opinion. If inclusion is one of the motives, it's not what me and others resieved.

@stephen

@paulfree14 @lichen

Im sorry I was defensive. I felt that the interaction was mischaracterising the process. And I stepped back, explained myself, and said I would be happy to include your critique in discussions. Your critique was made publicly. I'm working on improving my tone and would appreciate patience in that regard.

@stephen
just for the context of my last point:
It wasn't a critique directed to you. It was rather directed towards the situation multible people interacted that way. I aprichiate the conversation with you. Which is also important to note that it is happening with me, instead of over me (and others), while reframing my (others) actual arguments.
@lichen

@stephen
>. I'm working on improving my tone and would appreciate patience in that regard.

No worries! Thought for me it's even not so much about the tone, but rather which arguments have been aplied.

When it comes to criticizing tone I always find it important to keep this fallacy in mind:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
@lichen

@paulfree14 @lichen I have to leave social media for a while because I'm feeling overwhelmed. However I would please request that you not characterize decisions as having already been made. They haven't been, and they will be as time continues. But it doesn't happen overnight. Please consider asking the question instead of saying "It seems to be this ____, and if that's true, then that's bad because of ______"

@stephen
>Please consider asking the question instead of saying "It seems to be this ____, and if that's true, then that's bad because of ______"

That's something I can empathise much with. Being more aware of this, can improof comunication a lot.
thx.

@lichen

@paulfree14 Thanks.

@stephen
>However I would please request that you not characterize decisions as having already been made.

I will not fullfill this request until I understand its reasoning as logical consistent.
Where and how am I characterizing something as a made decision, which isn't?

@lichen

@paulfree14 I had quite the opposite impression tbqh, the whole point is giving voice to underrepresented needs, and everybody could participate. I followed the discussion in discord but couldn't make it to the meeting tho, and therefore I cannot give a truly informed opinion... where you part of it? @stephen

@lichen
>I followed the discussion in discord but couldn't make it to the meeting tho, and therefore I cannot give a truly informed opinion... where you part of it?

No. I find the usage of proprietary silo plattforms as counter productive, to what is said as want to be achieved.
I've been excluded based on having this opinion.
On the same asynchron meetings, at least for first, would be much more inclusive.
@stephen

@paulfree14 in my understanding efforts were made to bridge to alternative channels, but anyway, being against proprietary silos makes sense, but they still provide a massive amount of the current internet infrastructure, and refusing to reach out to people because of it a priori, before even beginning the discussion of how to build alternatives for everybody, cuts out the legs of any counter-efforts imo, it's seems elitist, at best @stephen

@bob @paulfree14 sure, hard to debate, but this was not a choice for a project, it was a temporary platform to discuss about the project, that's a different context @stephen

@lichen
it was said to me it was to discuss about how upcomming comunication will be organized.
Reading their docs it seems that it was much about building a struture defining the realationships between those that work within.

So the argument, this is just for the first meeting is false. If true, then the first meeting was somewhat wasting time.

@bob @stephen

@paulfree14 @lichen @bob time wasting is a tried and true part of non-hierarchical decision making.

@paulfree14 @bob having not been there I find it hard to assume that we have the right to judge on the effectiveness whatsoever
@stephen

@lichen @bob @paulfree14 @stephen It sent a message and suggested values. IRC could have been used just as well.

@Benjamin the values will have nothing to do with this choice, that's clear to me by following the project goals... as for alternative ways, it 'could' have been done differently, as everything, but someone had to do the actual labor and they went for the tool they judged as best for this specific occasion, and honestly I can only appreciate it @bob @paulfree14 @stephen

@bob @paulfree14 @lichen

- None of the tools we're using have a financial cost for any users
- This is an open source project, so by definition it will be visible to all
- The learning curve *and* cost is higher with tools such NextCloud and Matrix

We've been talking extensively about using all FLOSS tools, but there are real costs to that, in fact more cost than temporarily using discord. So, don't take the current choice as a permanent one.

@paulfree14 @emerican

>Embeding the exclusion of this into the CoC forms structural opression

Nothing has yet been embedded into the document yet. It is all up for debate. We're trying to be careful with language. Here, you made a statement that gave the impression to at least one person that this was final. It's not. I'm asking that you not give the impression that it's already been decided.

@stephen
I explicitly stated that it's not the final version and that I'm not shure if I understand it correct.

I'm giving feedback on a draft. The point I'm speaking about has been embeded into the document I'm reffering to.

Where am I missleading?

@emerican

@paulfree14 @emerican
Tbh, it was it was emerican's line that I took the greatest issue with. He since clarified the "if" part as well.

I'd personally prefer if you would please cw your critiques. I can copy your concerns for now and give you a heads up for when the workshopping begins.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gSaYF4D31DWVtY7qMeRVsI0Ht5tULT7pudFR_e5EHSs/edit

@stephen
>We're trying to make decisions together. I'm disappointed you'd make broad statements on something before it's been worked on

Forming a critic towards decisions that have been already made is part of making decisions together.

@emerican

@paulfree14 @emerican Then make a proposal before claiming something is embedded in the document already. The document is open for comment and hasn't even *begun* being workshopped. The document does not say that disruption is prohbited! What is important to you? Tell me, and I can bring it to the discussion.

@stephen
>Then make a proposal before claiming something is embedded in the document already.

A critic is valid without the other person being able to form a better proposal.
What I'm reffering to is in the docs. So I'm refering to this decision in its current state.
(to repeat myself: I might missunderstand the text. I'm not native english)

@emerican

https://todon.nl/media/ONT-iJQHB-eLCa5kqGk

@paulfree14 I agree, that passage needs work. We are also building in specific and explicit ways which moderators and board members and the like should be held accountable.