Reading through the code of conduct of #forkofftogether (it's not a final version) it seems contradicting itself.

It sates, if I understand it correct, that anyone being disruptive, even when aplying to the code of conduct will be removed.

In the CoC:
strictly prohibited, promoting the opression of any marginalized group based on..

Disruption is something very important to #anarchism. It's a method of challenging power. Embeding the exclusion of this into the CoC forms structural opression

@paulfree14 If that's correct and accurate, I couldn't see myself or any other principled anarchist getting volved in #forkofftogether

@emerican
the passage I'm speaking about was writen in a way confusing me.

So I might just missunderstand it.

Here you'll find the docs:
https://cloud.vbz.net/index.php/s/XKpxgsPnDSdd58H

it should be 3.1

@paulfree14 @emerican I have drafted a brainstorming document to start the code of conduct workshop. It specifically says that it's for brainstorming and is not final. We're trying to make decisions together. I'm disappointed you'd make broad statements on something before it's been worked on.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gSaYF4D31DWVtY7qMeRVsI0Ht5tULT7pudFR_e5EHSs/edit?usp=sharing

@stephen @paulfree14 I was just chiming in, said "if," not trying to make any sweeping statements. Just think it's important to not scare off anarchists with language that makes it seem like dissidence wouldn't be tolerated, unintentionally or otherwise. Didn't mean to be overly damning with my comment, if that's how it read.

@emerican @paulfree14 Thanks Emerican. We're trying very hard. But it may end up being that the language included is too prohibitive for anarchists. Tbh, I'm not sure what either of you mean by "disrupting" or "dissidence" in the line about about not "promoting the oppression of marginalized groups." Certainly I will advocate for people to express their opinions safely, but not if it includes hate speech. #ParadoxOfTolerance

@stephen
it just reads, that disruption won't be tolerated. It doesn't give a reason, nor says disruption against what.

If a group chooses binary majority voting leading to a desicion that I believe to be harmfull, but through the defined process of forming that desicion I'm not able to express myself in a way I believe is required, I will disrupt the process.

@emerican

@paulfree14 @emerican I haven't heard anyone propose binary majority voting for decisions. If they did, I would argue against it. I see that your concern is to protect people to express themselves. But, as I said, I don't see how that relates to the line you quoted. I do hear that you think it's important that diverse opinions may be heard. I agree. But, what I'm asking you, is to please be careful in making blanket statements about what's "embedded in the document" this early.

@emerican @stephen
>I haven't heard anyone propose binary majority voting for decisions

me neither. I just made a example, so it's easier to understand what I'm tryn to express.

>I'm asking you, is to please be careful in making blanket statements about what's "embedded in the document" this early.

I don't understand what you mean here.

@paulfree14

I thought you were quoting the oppression line to say "this line is silencing dissent." Now I see you meant your screenshot. I will bring this issue up. To me, preventing the oppression of marginalized groups takes precedence over silencing disruptive people. Moderator accountability will be a crucial inclusion in the document. I'd welcome your feedback or ideas in the brainstorming document if you have more notes.

@stephen
>preventing the oppression of marginalized groups takes precedence over silencing disruptive people.

I find that being missleading since disruption can be a tool to counter opression. Anarchists tend to use it for this purpose.

@paulfree14 "Disruption" is a little too abstract of a concept for me to understand in this context. As I said, preventing and countering oppression is the more important principle, at least in my mind. That's what I mean by taking precedence. To some degree, explicitly talking about how to hold moderators accountable should be able to account for this. I will try to propose new language for that segment, if I have time.

@stephen @paulfree14 just a caveat on the term 'disruption': it has recently become quite a negative one in my personal experience, in the context of technology at least, if intended in a positive sense, as a way to bring up challenging a status quo detrimental to marginalized communities, perhaps a different word would be better. I'm thinking of Silicon Valley startup clichés here, to give an example, where disruption usually means tech-bros assholery..

@lichen
>I'm thinking of Silicon Valley startup clichés here, to give an example, where disruption usually means tech-bros assholery.

many people follow and obey to them. That is what serves them power.
Disruption is irritating a system, even when it's just for a moment. Where those moments spark, we can be given the chance to break out of routine daylife, that serves in most cases a system of structural opression.
@stephen

@paulfree14 I see what you mean, there's no doubt that structural oppression should be questioned, but sticking to the term I was just observing how it's practically being used.. and, at least in a tech context, the disruption efforts, even when genuinely sparkled from good intentions, too often prove to backfire terribly when there's lack of a diverse and rich community culture (this diversity and inclusiveness is basically what the fork is about tbh, in my understanding) @stephen

@lichen
>this diversity and inclusiveness is basically what the fork is about...

What I have observed it's not. The first meeting was very predefined, incl. the exclusion of ppl from the organisational process that led to the first meating.

#forkofftogether
#forkofffeedback

@stephen