From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mon May 20 09:33:43 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C05715A780B for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:33:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ot1-f50.google.com (mail-ot1-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329246DB23 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:33:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ot1-f50.google.com with SMTP id i2so6993696otr.9 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 02:33:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fsNTNRF8HOnktsnnyf0qdepbGkiqnO0sBAu/gZfHuOQ=; b=XGE2jpM2zNzHB1Zzi2EwjpcU3pywXIqOduYczf1ji4uy7uKWk3iOA+I03gA4GHLEk5 GtvA7bgpZXxQG/lG1+X93etg275SVOgfWW+XtX+ha6rwz1OE4ayyehZ5v9P4LNpsNJeW 6WZpV4AMAWPBsd5fC/eG7fLXQ8NNrOZI66I07/PSG9yOzCdIJiS/DigZUx8Y2e0ixv2f eUZ6py5/VqyWpqKrOgzf/xfiWxeovzv9OuvnAKa+F3dj0KPX3dJMLV28HQvm0fbTdefn pbMIvBx2vMja+/VVbg8CHNOvHVmkoi5+saJQqTJL/MZCp1hra8mDLdsBTukz3APDWySd PWbw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVlkjbpKaeeRQtwX/3LjuqdXDKwZ29n+oMZWi99YYwBIAg0yOHr mK1zcxwX92sa01pCTtFHhtE5SgNT+f1LsxXc6gc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyDArpv/VMSWwwhoBfAQmtoUEbXUmVQxDJ3pvaLFM/trN60fvzTAoBaI7U/dkEnKDhGVk9AHiActew3RrsdeS8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:209a:: with SMTP id y26mr14213924otq.232.1558344820962; Mon, 20 May 2019 02:33:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <868svf6r05.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> <00144DCD-7DB6-475A-9719-D5B714B84DC8@cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <00144DCD-7DB6-475A-9719-D5B714B84DC8@cs.huji.ac.il> From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:33:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD Core Team Response to Controversial Social Media Posts To: Daniel Braniss Cc: Warner Losh , Graham Perrin , FreeBSD Current Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 329246DB23 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mozolevsky@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mozolevsky@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.22 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[hybrid-lab.co.uk]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[50.210.85.209.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.18]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[50.210.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.934,0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk,mozolevsky@gmail.com]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk,mozolevsky@gmail.com]; IP_SCORE(-1.27)[ip: (-0.54), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.49), asn: 15169(-2.27), country: US(-0.06)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 09:33:43 -0000 So you think a discussion on whether it is appropriate that CoC Ctte restricts freedom of expression is bikeshedding? Thank you for your valuable contribution! -- Igor M. On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 06:23, Daniel Braniss wrote: > > BIKE SHED SYNDROME? > > danny > PS: intentionally top posting :-) > > > On 19 May 2019, at 22:43, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: > > > > On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 20:16, Warner Losh wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Igor Mozolevsky wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 17:54, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> Yes. There will always be limits, just like in real life. You can't tell > >>>> fire in a theater, and claim freedom of expression, for example. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> While that is an often cited example, it is rather tenuous as far as > >>> "freedom of expression" is concerned: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded > >>> theatre is by no measure an expression of one's views, thoughts, or > >>> opinions. At the same time, the invocation of a CoC ctte review is > >>> triggered by precisely the latter. > >> > >> > >> It is a difficult problem. The project needs to protect itself and its > >> members from harm. Sometimes, though rarely, that harm > >> comes from expressing ones views in a way that's so extreme > >> it causes real and lasting problems either for the cohesiveness > >> of the project, or its effect on the project's reputation is so > >> extreme, people can't separate the two and stop using it. There > >> needs to be a review mechanism for cases that are extreme. > > > > It's very difficult to subscribe to that view! The first problem you > > encounter is "what is an objectively extreme expression"--what is > > extreme to one, might be entirely common place to another. I'm sure > > whatever religious book one takes there is a passage that goes along > > the lines of "judge people by their deeds not by their words"... > > Secondly, the greatest legal minds in the US wrangled with that and > > came up with one answer: *ANY* expression is protected for otherwise > > it would not be "freedom." > > > > > >> At the same time, reviews are detrimental if they are triggered > >> for 'ordinary' conduct: they take time and energy away from > >> the project that could otherwise be spent on making things > >> better. The trick is to have any such review reflect the broad > >> consensus within the project of what's clearly out of bounds, > >> as well as having a fair and just response by the board in > >> the cases that require some action. > > > > > > Agreement by consensus is most dangerous, for, usually, the loudest > > wins because people with no backbone fall in-line; the best > > explanation of democracy I have ever heard was: "two wolves and a > > sheep deciding what to have for dinner!"