ubuntu-lgbt team mailing list archive

[Melissa Draper <melissa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 13:16 +0100, Jimmy Forrester-Fellowes wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> thanks for the detailed email, I totally understand the channel policy
> is not intended as discrimination toward the LGBT community. 
> 
> I do however disagree with the suggested connotation between
> 'sexuality' and 'none family-friendly'. 

For the record, the phrase was actually 'this is a family-friendly
multi-cultural channel'.

> I would like to think that a conversation involving/discussing
> sexuality would be suitable for the '6 year old' you mentioned,
> sexuality != sexual. If we continue to sweep the sexuality topic under
> the carpet then how will things ever change? We will continue to
> nurture a society where any sexuality other than 'straight' is
> considered a taboo topic and isn't 'normal'.

I understand that you feel early exposure is good, and to a degree, so
do I. Education is vital under the right circumstances. However, I am
also of the opinion that online is one of the absolute worst places
*ever* for young people to rely on for education or guidance on issues
as psychologically sensitive as sexuality.

We do not exclude people whose culture and or upbringing has taught them
to find a LGBT lifestyle offensive. Those people are the ones who can
inflict misguidance on the vulnerable minds you hope to enlighten.

I am aware of enough people in the #ubuntu-offtopic who would have a
grossly negative effect if unleashed and unsupervised. This number is
thankfully not large, but it's significant enough to have an effect
under the wrong circumstances. On the other hand, I know of zero
qualified counsellors or psychologists in the channel and hence nobody
who would be able to offer a sufficient buffer against any mistreatment
or misinformation.

> It was originally brought to my attention that i was treading on the
> channels policies toes when I asked if there were any lesbian ubuntu
> users in the channel as I'd intended to ask them a few questions re:
> discrimination. I was quickly told that the subject was not suitable 

I was the one who (3 minutes, 20 lines and !several !bot !calls later)
suggested to you that the asking for public confessions was
inappropriate.

I reasoned to you at the time that the query was inappropriate because
it was asking people to out themselves. Sure, people may choose to do
so, and that's perfectly wonderful if they do so understanding and
accepting the risks. Many people in #ubuntu* channels are new to IRC and
have absolutely no idea what those risks are.

Encouraging baptism by fire (unintentionally or not) is not
newbie-friendly at all. It is really not a good way to encourage others
to feel comfortable expressing themselves. Hence, allowing the baiting
of people into a situation they're unprepared for is not something we
want in any #ubuntu channel.

That's not to blame you for being you, nor is it an excuse bad behaviour
-- quite to the contrary. The ops are all sympathetic to the recipients
of harrassment. Keep in mind though that not all responses will be of
this nature. If an opposing opinion is presented in a manner that is not
inflammatory or hateful, then we are bound by the Code of Conduct's
expectation of respect and courtesy to give them the equal opportunity
to express it.

Also keep in mind that as a purely voluntary group, the IRC team cannot
guarantee to be around or able to provide sufficient assistance at any
given point in time if there happens to be an outcry. Witnessing such a
brawl is quite unfriendly to all onlookers, and something that would be
traumatic to someone who is battling with their own identity.

> and if I don't like the rules i should leave & if I continued the
> topic someone would help me leave.

Not by us. We cannot prevent eager onlookers from trying to join in and
feel important. It was probably a mistake on our behalf for not paying
enough attention to them enough to tell them to back off.

We probably could have also taken you aside and spent more time
discussing this than the explanations given inline at the time.
Unfortunately, we did not see the need at the time, and we simply don't
have time to do that for every single channel user anyway.

> I enjoy visiting the offtopic channel and have done on and off for a
> couple of years. I think the op's do a fantastic job of keeping it a
> safe & enjoyable environment, it's just this one issue of sexuality
> being an no-go topic seems a little traditional, conservative & out of
> date to me.

The whole Open Source community is out of date. As one of the few women
who can stomach that channel, I agree with the notion totally. 

In fact, the 'gender' part of o4o is what makes #ubuntu-offtopic
tolerable for me. It is a blurry category name, but it is sufficient for
the regulars who cannot manage their own behaviour without having
prescribed and enforced boundaries. It prevents potential discussions
about appearance, role and availability which I would find distasteful.

My willingness to stay in the channel because of this keeps the channel
tolerable for the other women there. If they had to stand up against the
requests for pictures or notions they do not exist on teh intarwebs,
alone -- then they probably wouldn't. They would cease exist in that
part of the Internet.

That is the kind of positive role you can take in the channel for LGBT
people. Simply exist and be yourself. Be the one to represent and speak
up on behalf of LGBT people in situations where homophobic attitudes
surface. You will get support from the majority of the channel.
(Non-LGBT people are usually not taken seriously when defending LGBT
people, since we can only speculate). You really can maintain a
visibility, provide enlightenment, and make a huge difference without
going overboard or hijacking the channel as a platform. It is totally a
matter of knowing what the limits are.

In the end, you have to remember that the IRC team runs on a negative
budget. Our responsibility costs us. It costs us our own pockets for the
infrastructure our factoid, bug-snarfing, flood protection and behaviour
monitoring systems run on (logging is handled by canonical and the
european locos). Occasionally we have even had to take time off our paid
jobs because there is an influx of spammers/trolls and nobody else
around to take over. It's not like code that can wait -- it's all real
time activity. More frequent storms over o4o topics would require this
much more often.

Sadly, when things are run below the bone like this, sometimes small
luxuries like bra burning rallies and gay pride parades have to be
sacrificed from technical channels to make them work at all.

> All the best,
> Jimmy
> 
> 
> *** Sparkle Interactive ***
> http://www.sparkleInteractive.co.uk
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Tony Yarusso
> <tonyyarusso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>         It has come to my attention that there has been a bit of a
>         misunderstanding of late about the polices enforced in the
>         #ubuntu-offtopic IRC channel.  I'm writing this note in hopes
>         of
>         clarifying that a bit, and hopefully helping to settle down
>         what has
>         apparently become an occasionally heated argument for some
>         reason.  I
>         don't particularly feel like signing up to another mailing
>         list at the
>         moment, so if you deem it appropriate you are welcome to
>         forward this
>         to the ubuntu-lgbt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ML as well.
>         
>         First, to clarify the position I am writing from, I am one of
>         the
>         operators in that channel, and someone who has helped craft
>         the
>         policies of it.  I am not one of the current IRC Council
>         members.  I
>         am also a longtime user of that channel, having frequented it
>         since
>         2005, so I've had the opportunity to watch it evolve quite a
>         bit.
>         I'll be addressing things both from the perspective of what
>         our rules
>         actually say, and even more importantly, how they are
>         enforced.
>         
>         Okay, on to addressing the points previously raised:
>         
>         Jimmy wrote:
>         "I was shocked when I was told in the official ubuntu IRC
>         channels
>         (#ubuntu-offtopic on irc.ubuntu.com/freenode to be specific)
>         LGBT is a
>         banned topic according to the channels terms of service. I
>         think in
>         this day and age that's appalling, what does everyone else
>         think?"
>         
>         It is NOT anything LGBT-related that is a banned topic of
>         discussion,
>         but rather sexuality in general.  It has nothing to do with
>         anyone's
>         sexual orientation, but rather the fact that there's really no
>         reason
>         for people to be talking about sexuality-related things on an
>         Ubuntu
>         channel.  This stems from the same basic "family-friendly"
>         principles
>         as many other things, meaning that while the channel should be
>         useful
>         to a 60-year-old, it should also be appropriate for a
>         6-year-old.
>         
>         Scott wrote:
>         "I hadn't heard about that, I'll investigate and raise this
>         with the
>         community council."
>         
>         While that's all well and good, normally procedure in IRC-land
>         is for
>         policies to first be discussed in #ubuntu-ops or on the
>         ubuntu-irc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list, which are both
>         publicly
>         archived.  That allows the normal transparency and openness
>         that is
>         essential to our community operating effectively, as well as
>         reaching
>         the full audience that it should.  The Community Council
>         operates by
>         contacting sub-project councils, in this case the IRC Council,
>         which
>         is a small group of operators intended to handle unusual
>         matters and
>         has a private mailing list, which is great for the things they
>         usually
>         deal with, but not as appropriate for this in my opinion.
>          Part of the
>         reason I'm addressing this e-mail to you directly is because I
>         only
>         have second-hand knowledge of what has happened so far, and no
>         way to
>         reply in the original medium.
>         
>         Doc wrote:
>         "Now, I say that, at this point, not exactly having READ it so
>         I may
>         be talking out of my butt"
>         
>         Yes, it would be very much helpful to read things first.  :P
>         
>         "The issue is what is banned by this policy? If I say, "My
>         boyfriend
>         and I installed Ubuntu together last night and liked it" will
>         that get
>         me kicked out of the channel by this policy? Because I'm a boy
>         with a
>         boyfriend, is that not seen as an "LGBT topic." However, if
>         you tried
>         to kick me out for saying, "My girlfriend and I installed
>         Ubuntu..."
>         people would be in an uproar because no one sees anything
>         wrong with
>         that."
>         
>         No, there would be no kicking for mentioning your boyfriend
>         installing
>         Ubuntu.  We would take issue with someone discussing sexual
>         activities
>         with their partner regardless of gender (see above), but there
>         is no
>         problem with mentioning the existence of such a person (and in
>         fact
>         this certainly comes up with some frequency, both with the
>         heterosexual and the significant number of LGBT members of the
>         channel).  Again, it is sexuality, sexual activity, and sexual
>         harassment that are the issue, not LGBT orientation.
>         
>         "There cannot be any LGBT policies on our lists. They are
>         discriminatory. There are no Black policies. There are no
>         Jewish
>         policies. Why are there LGBT policies?"
>         
>         The !o4o factoid, which summarizes the topics we try to avoid,
>         reads as follows:
>         'Some things are inappropriate for #ubuntu-offtopic.
>         Controversial
>         topics, which often turn into flame wars: war, race, religion,
>         politics, gender, sexuality, drugs, questionably legal
>         activities,
>         suicide are not for here. Please discuss these rules
>         themselves only
>         in #ubuntu-ops. Microsoft software in ##windows (Please note
>         Freenode
>         Policy)'
>         
>         You'll note that race and religion are also on the list.
>          Again, this
>         is not anything to do with someone mentioning their own or a
>         friend's
>         race or religion, but rather applies to arguments, harassment,
>         or
>         belittling based on those types of topics.  It has nothing to
>         do with
>         which people are accepted as users in our channels (ALL are),
>         but
>         rather what kind of discussions we want going on.
>         
>         "You need to have the SAME standards for Straight people and
>         for LGBT people."
>         
>         I believe we do.  If there was ever a concern that someone had
>         acted
>         otherwise, that would be something to bring up in #ubuntu-ops
>         to be
>         remedied, and I would encourage you to do so if you ever felt
>         wronged
>         in that way in #ubuntu-offtopic or any other channel in the
>         main
>         #*ubuntu* namespace.
>         
>         "Within the spectrum of sexuality discussions, of course, if a
>         guy and
>         a girl are discussion [sic] how they got it on last night, I
>         think
>         that might be inappropriate to the forum, but not more so and
>         not less
>         so than if two guys or two girls were discussing the same
>         thing."
>         
>         That is precisely what we're after, yes.
>         
>         Robert wrote:
>         (various things) - I just want to note that he was pretty much
>         spot on
>         with his responses, which I would expect, as he is also a
>         rather
>         regular user of the channel.  Feel free to read his note again
>         also.
>         
>         In more general terms, I want to let you know two things about
>         the
>         guidelines and policies used in the IRC channels, and
>         #ubuntu-offtopic
>         in particular:
>         
>         First, they are guidelines, and generally pretty broad, with
>         enforcement up to the discretion of active operators.  The
>         *intent* of
>         the topics listed in !o4o being there is to avoid flamewars,
>         harassment, and people getting hurt in rather un-Ubuntu-like
>         ways, and
>         enforcement follows intent.  From time to time there may be a
>         discussion that touches on one of those, but with all of the
>         participants being polite and considerate while doing so, and
>         when
>         that is the case it is generally allowed to continue if that
>         remains
>         the case.  However, when things don't look like they'll turn
>         out well,
>         we try to stop it early before things get nasty.  If you ever
>         had a
>         concern about unfair enforcement by a particular channel
>         operator,
>         that again would be an issue to take to #ubuntu-ops to discuss
>         with
>         other operators.  Usually if things look questionable users
>         will be
>         asked to stop or take it to another channel before any kicking
>         or
>         anything happens - whenever possible we try to catalyse the
>         situation
>         per Freenode recommendations, and kicks are best for when
>         things have
>         already gone too far or an operator shows up too late,
>         particularly in
>         the offtopic channels.
>         
>         Second, they are based on experience.  The operation of
>         #ubuntu-offtopic has gone through several cycles of being more
>         or less
>         strict about the allowable topics and acceptable behavior.  We
>         would
>         generally prefer to be more hands-off in the channel, but
>         current
>         wisdom from experience unfortunately is that it needs to be
>         controlled
>         a bit more tightly, as when it has not the channel has rapidly
>         become
>         more hostile and unpleasant than both the operators and
>         regular users
>         cared for.
>         
>         I hope that has answered some of the questions and concerns
>         raised
>         thus far.  If you have others, I would be happy to address
>         them,
>         either with other members of the IRC operators team in
>         #ubuntu-ops or
>         privately (I'm also tonyyarusso on Freenode and always
>         available to
>         /query - even if I don't respond immediately, my client is
>         always on,
>         so I will eventually).
>         
>         P.S.  I was unaware until recently of the existence of the
>         ubuntu-lgbt
>         team, but am pleased to now see it exists.  It's always nice
>         to see
>         different groups of Ubuntu users coalescing, and the notion of
>         community interaction is I feel what really sets Ubuntu apart.
>         
>         --
>         Tony Yarusso
>         http://tonyyarusso.com/
> 
-- 
Melissa Draper

w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net
p: +61 4 0359 5395