From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sun May 19 19:48:56 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 23AB7158F904 for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 19:48:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ot1-f42.google.com (mail-ot1-f42.google.com [209.85.210.42]) (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 3ACED71CA2 for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 19:48:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ot1-f42.google.com with SMTP id n14so11165171otk.2 for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 12:48:55 -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=khjVTE5pKuOtgtbc58KFf1knC0QMCpjN+BWjY1okMKE=; b=WEvXeNHiEpce1HyyXr4OQZLAEj7/q6aJwI+lk/zqIliO0A9bJH30GahYs/1yS8Wrdv nJFsl6kKvmHIFvTo3c5K2tVYpj10sYnhlxibPe1vIl/1BDtBacfda2GuFeuyVtxHChbH 62Zch/SWH2L6MCUNpD/zCPUw4HueFLHUKHC1UGqQh+LKBrssyqnQPtH6ugCjFtG4djl8 ojW7+a0SNYVaq4kW4RjdqYHmQlidZGZr0RmHx0JKu1YXoekPKa3MF5ORGQ2Vk3J+Phoq 5yMizOjccgQTE2PNd0Q6oflIaAASh4X1fvL5vUUlBrimVPr2GapL4tfLhi2sQGXUJoep lFgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXkCSGLANJq7YAzkKiCcxIjxRIgAuHF6p812tWyvQR50b21BUa GSsoNUzVudirGgk5tpmQsmLzNdUfEKrvuRxziyM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJk1g+Uk6/eEoDx0WN8q31ZkT5zkLTCnbFvftdF0N/ZYJbXMDBI3FAmF5q9i4yUmK6AtFOPgHFOi9AukmK0EE= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1b4b:: with SMTP id l69mr21260975otl.141.1558295021805; Sun, 19 May 2019 12:43:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <868svf6r05.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> In-Reply-To: From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 20:43:06 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD Core Team Response to Controversial Social Media Posts To: Warner Losh Cc: Graham Perrin , FreeBSD Current Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3ACED71CA2 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mozolevsky@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mozolevsky@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.92 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; 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)[42.210.85.209.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)[42.210.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.69)[-0.694,0]; 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(-1.22)[ip: (-0.28), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.50), asn: 15169(-2.27), country: US(-0.06)]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com] 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: Sun, 19 May 2019 19:48:56 -0000 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!" -- Igor M.