๐ณ๐ฑ
@doot I think its important to include the full context here... the wording is specifically:
> No "hate speech", speech that nefariously expresses a form of prejudice or threatens a people of a protected characteristic (such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender, pregnancy, religion, sex or sexuality - unpopular opinions
voiced respectfully is fine).
What is being said here is that no hate speech or attacks or anything of that sort are allowed against any of the protected and marginalized groups... **outside** of that if you have an opinion which is not an attack on one of these groups, but people just dont like it, then its fine.
Forcing people to only speak popular opinions and banning people for unpopular ones is highly problematic IMO. As long as you are respectful, and do not disenfranchize marcganialized groups I think not having fear of being banned just for being unpopular is a good thing.
I'd be happy to hear your opinions on why "you can only say popular things" would be a good thing?
@freemo @doot I raised this on your discussion system, but as there's no answer there and your site has gone live despite the numerous outstanding and unanswered discussions on your organisation's Gitlab I'll repeat it here. Of all the things that are prohibited, why is hate speech in air quotes?
Your Code of Ethics prohibits four things: hate speech; Calls to violence; intentionally circumventing blocks; and harassmnent [sic]
Only one of these things has air quotes.
Please explain.
I wasnt the one who wrote that, the air quotes were added later by an edit... I honestly cant imagine why it is in air quotes.. I will remove it now.
Sorry I didnt see your issue. The site is live, but the bylaws arent final. We first need to get instances and have a mechanism in place for voting, and only then can we finalize it from draft to published.
Anyway making that edit now.
Literally every country has.. corporations are not democratic enttities that are formed by the comming together of independent enttiities.
In fact it is quite common to FIRST gather the members of an organization that wish to form a union, and THEN decide as a group what bylaws should exist that satisfied everyone.
PErsonally I think this is the right move, i think it would be in bad taste for me to dictate the bylaws to everyone and then expect people to follow it. This is supposed to be a democracy, the bylaws are a starting point, enttities join to try to help us create a good set of bylaws, those instnaces can leave if things head in the wrong direction.. and hopefully we get a good result in the end.
You are welcome to wait if you wish bylaws to be dictated to you rather than being a part of their creation, no worries, we arent going anywhere.
>In fact it is quite common to FIRST gather the members of an organization that wish to form a union, and THEN decide as a group what bylaws should exist that satisfied everyone.
I believed that was what was happening on your Gitlab.
Now that you are public, I have to assume this is either unwanted input or deemed not necessary for launch, either of which are anathema to my participation.
Yes it is what is happening on the gitlab.. people who are interested in the project and feel they are likely to want to be members (or even just want to provide input) are there trying to improve the wording..
The site is live to ensure we can get more people interested and tentatively wanting to join so we can get more heads on the gitlab and improve it.
What i dont want is a msall isolated group of people to decide for everyone... we get everyone involved who likes the basic idea, then we work on refining it as a group, then int he end see whos left.
I dont get why this seems to upset you,.
@freemo @doot
>The site is live, but the bylaws arent final.
No corporation I have ever incorporated, no organisation I have ever founded, started with the notion that it needs more members before it can create its own bylaws.
I - for one - will wait until your bylaws are final before considering applying.