On 2011-05-11 Philipp wrote:
* Jos Poortvliet (jos@opensuse.org) [20110511 10:24]:
Who's definition do we use?
"whatever makes someone feel uncomfortable".
Sorry, but human interaction sometimes is uncomfortable. Ander that definition you can't even critisize someone as that could make the other feel uncomfortable.
Surely a disagreement in itself can be uncomfortable, and I realize I was exaggerating a bit. I just tried to say that this is a subjective thing and we'll take feelings serious. You can't define feelings nor can anyone judge how someone else feels. Hence we have to base it on that. As long as there is no obvious, clear violation of generally accepted rules (eg like someone grabbing someone else in a sexual way) we'll keep it at talking to the people involved and as we're all adults I doubt we'll have an issue getting a solution. Of course it does depend on the response of whoever insulted someone else what we do after that but again, that's obvious imho. We're not aiming for a crusade, I believe I've made that clear many times already. This thread surely doesn't do justice to the aims, goals nor text of the policy in my opinion. Frankly I doubt any issues whould have been handled in any other way if they would've come up in last year's conference - I only tried to write down what we would have done in the past anyway. Which boils down to talk to the people involved and only take action in case of clear violations (or a very rude response to the issue brought forward).
Yes, completely subjective, and as this IS about subjective feelings, that is all the definition we need.
Brave new world indeed. Sorry, but this discussion will lead nowhere so I'll just drop out again.
Look, if this was a policy the government would come up with for the public space and even to be followed in house, I'd be the first to scream 1984. But it's not - it's about a 'private' event where we have every right to set the rules.
Philipp