Please figure out a less draconian interpretation of this policy because your “most draconian interpretation” certainly does not reflect the intention. If you can find a better formulation, please do.
But if Mastodon developers are here, and Gab developers are not, there is a good reason.
The idea is to prevent hostile disruption, not to chastise AP developers. If you can see it as a statement of good faith, as a positive right (I think this is the issue at play here, that European right and U.S. right come from entirely different places, the latter leading to considering ‘most draconian interpretations’ while the former leading to consider the ‘spirit of the law’), then you might reconsider…
Is this the only change in your revised proposal? I see that you’re shifting the responsibility out of projects. That means we could have a Gab page here, but no-one from Gab could participate. I cannot see how this makes sense. I think a project has some control over their communities: forks or parallel projects only count as your community if you’re happy with collaborating with them. If you exclude them because of their ethics you will have “made a good faith effort to discourage such behaviours.”
Of course. You’re not responsible for people using your software. But you can still make some of them feel they’d rather use another software by refusing to normalize their oppressive presence in your community. That’s the whole spirit of the policy.
This is not a CoC, it’s a policy. W3C CPEC is the CoC. A ‘policy’ is something members of the community need to take a position on. If there’s no agreement, then there’s probably need to clarify both the intent and the text. The scope is the SocialCG and the SocialHub. It may affect the Fediverse positively but we’re not a State with an army, you know.
The ACM ethics board involves “non-discrimination” against… military status, and uses the notion of ‘race’, which, in my book, is racist, since this notion has no basis except in racist literrature. Seriously? Please, tell me to not discriminate Facebook and I’ll be happy to try and understand what it means to do reverse racism and find it acceptable. The W3C CEPC is a bit more progressive IMO.
The point of giving a time limit is exactly to draw attention on the topic and clarify things. That includes debates and amendments. But experience shows that such a policy could well be postponed indefinitely and this is not what we want. Instead we want to make a statement and get past it. It’s unfortunate that the main point of the proposal be side-stepped by details out of scope of the proposal. If you think the policy is against you, I certainly misunderstood your politics, @kaniini. Let’s find ways to clarify that developers are not responsible for downstream usage, but also that community members flagging instances, users, or calling a developer to do something about their downstream attitudes be actionable: if a developer is called upon that, for example, his new contributor is part of an organization promoting racism, then he should do something about associating with them, because this is in his reach.
This topic seems a bit fast. Please refrain from repeating yourselves, take time to respond, and leave space for other people to intervene.