On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 18:36 +0200, jdd wrote:
Le 11/05/2011 17:59, Bryen M. Yunashko a écrit :
Because of the lack of an anti-harassment policy, I was unable to get up and state something to this group.
I don't think an explicit policy is necessary in such situation, but I'm sure it's not sufficient
you said yourself :"the anti-harassment policy was in place simply because "they had to do it legally."
isn't it exactly what we are doing here?
No it is not, and you are missing the whole point of the discussion as evidenced by several of your previous posts. The main goal here is to encourage an foster an environment that is welcoming and inviting to people of all races, creed, gender and physical abilities. That requires multiple pieces to be put together to form a greater picture of clarity to all within the affected community. An anti-harassment policy is but one of the pieces necessary to make it clear to our community that we welcome diversity. An anti-harassment policy is not, in and of itself, a message welcoming such diversity, but rather a tool to help ensure such diversity. Other steps need to be taken, including proclaiming directly that we embrace diversity and putting words into actions that encourage diversity. One such method is to ensure that our CFP process encourages it. And myself and Alan Clark, both members of the CFP commmittee, have now stated within the thread here that we will do so.
We have to make evident we are going to enforce the policy (and say how, to be trusted). You should have known how to react and to whom go to signal the fact.
Clearly by stating what you just said you have actually supported my case. You have obviously very little personal experience being part of an affected community that experiences harassment (and discrimination) on a regular basis as a way of life. "You should have known..." sure... I could have stood up and walked over to the group and scolded them. But life isn't so black and white. I know from personal experience that reality isn't always so easy. Those who harass will endlessly argue their way out of accepting responsibility for their actions. That's why court dockets are filled with such infractions being argued in a court of law. And without the text present, those affected become powerless as a minority. The text gives us the tool we need to be on equal ground and its a very important tool. But again, not the only tool. Beecause those of us who are affected are not drawn to entities that simply have such a policy, we're drawn to those that vigorously embrace diversity. It's why so many people with disabilities are drawn to Google, because of their strong stance on embrace. Same with the GNOME Foundation. You can argue all you want, but until you've walked a mile in our shoes, your arguments don't hold much of a candle. If you're going to continue to find ways to get us out of this by watering down and narrowing down and looking for end-runs, then all you are doing is presenting yourself as a person who does not embrace diversity. I sincerely hope that interpretation is wrong, but your actions thus far aren't proving otherwise. Bryen
jdd
-- http://www.dodin.net http://www.youtube.com/user/jdddodinorg http://jdd.blip.tv/
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org