Hi Sasha, Thanks for pointing this out and for sharing your concerns about the current wording. I just looked back through the various versions on the website, and as far as I can tell, this sentence has been in there from the beginning (in 2016). However, this is definitely something we can discuss in the Diversity Task Force. We're planning to have our next meeting during RIPE 77 in Amsterdam. Cheers, Mirjam On 09/09/2018 14:02, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hello all,
I noticed the following in the RIPE mailing list and RIPE meeting Code of Conduct (emphasis mine):
Please treat each other with tolerance and respect. *_Free speech_* and an open exchange of ideas *_is encouraged and celebrated_*. Demeaning, intimidating or harming other community members is wrong. We are especially sensitive to behaviour that offends based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnic origin, or other perceived social, cultural, or personal differences.
Earlier, the CoC also mentions "diversity of views”.
My concern with this wording is that, in my personal experience, “free speech” and “diversity of views” are often used as arguments by people to justify sharing discriminatory views, or demanding that space is made for their ideas. It makes it seem like CoC decisions are taken in a way where free speech and the diversity of views are balanced against harm, rather than just saying that harmful statements are not ok. Even in the more restricted European legal interpretation of free speech, there are many statements that are inappropriate and harmful for a community that aims to be inclusive, yet most certainly within the legal bounds.
By making free speech and diversity of views seem equally important to the incidence of harm, I think the current wording allows too much freedom, and can reduce the reporting rate. Increasing the reporting rate is a general struggle for communities, and anything that makes people more hesitant to report weakens the CoC. Personally, I’d be reluctant to report anything non-physical under a CoC that mentions free speech and diversity of ideas as values.
If my memory serves me right, the text of the CoC was decided by the WG chairs. Was there an actual expert involved? And what was the reason for the chairs (or whoever else was involved) to mention free speech and diversity of views this way? Did they consider the potential negative impact? Writing CoC language is quite difficult and sensitive, and small changes can have large impacts.
Sasha
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity