Re: [PATCH] CODE_OF_CONDUCT: expect tolerance, not respect

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 23 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 
> >  * Using welcoming and inclusive language
> > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
> > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences
> >  * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
> >  * Focusing on what is best for the community
> >  * Showing empathy towards other community members
> 
> [I happen to be on the PLC, and I'm not speaking for the PLC, just
> myself]
> 
> Generally speaking, and not just commenting on this specific patch: I'm
> not in principle against us forking the upstream CoC if we as a project
> & community deem that a worthy trade-off for whatever reason.
> 
> But in the case of this specific patch, (and I'm focusing on points not
> already raised by others):
> 
> 1. The specific wording you're changing is something that changed in the
>    CoC from version 1.4 (which we adopted) to upstream's 2.0.
> 
>    My reading of the 2.0 wording is that it contradicts your
>    interpretation, it talks about "being respectful of differing
>    opinions".

I don't see how the change from "differing viewpoints" to "differing opinions,
viewpoints" contradicts my interpretation.

>    If the CoC means to enforce something about privately held views as
>    you seem to suggest (and not just behavior in public),

No, that's not necessarily what I'm suggesting.

Let me try again:

  1. Respecting differing opinions is an internal matter. You can't
     really do it, even if you want to. Also, it can't be enforced,
     because nobody can know if you are actually doing it or not.

  2. Behaving respectfully of differing opinions is an external matter.
     You can do it, even if you don't really respect an opinion, you can
     act as if you do. It can be enforced, because others can see how
     you behave.

Even if the CoC is trying to enforce #2, it's still not desirable to do
so.

Now, it's debatable whether or not "being respectful" is taking about #1
or #2, I don't think it particularly matters, since #1 is asking for
something impossible, and #2 is asking to lie. Either way it's not good.

>    then it seems like a paradox to me that it also asks participants
>    to be respectful of differing opinions.

I don't see how "views" or "opinions" alter the argument.

>    To be clear I don't agree with your reading of it. I'm just
>    suggesting that any proposed updates to the CoC that rely on reading
>    specific intent into the wording therein attempt to do the legwork of
>    convincing this ML to accept the proposed change in a way that
>    provides more context for the change.

It is not my reading; it's literally saying "being respectful". The word
"respect" has an established meaning, and it doesn't matter if they are
asking to actually *be* respectful (#1), or merely *show* respect (#2);
both are a problem.

So at the very least it's asking to show respect.

What is your reading? Does your reading not imply showing respect?

>    Discussing that upstream has changed the relevant part from A to B,
>    but we're proposing a change from A to C seems highly relevant.

Yes, it is relevant, and I will contact upstream about it, but even if
they deny the change, what part of the rationale is not correct?

Many more people with a lot more knowledge about the philosophy of
freedom of speech weighted in the University of Cambridge debate, and
the exact same rationale applies here.

> 2. The CoC has official translations into a bunch of languages:
>    https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations/
> 
>    So I think that even if we deem a git.git-specific change to the CoC
>    to be worthwhile losing a 1=1 mapping between our version and those
>    translations should give us pause since we'd be less inclusive to
>    non-native English speaking contributors of the project.
> 
>    Furthermore, I think a really basic sanity check on any specific
>    reading or interpretation of the CoC is to see if also holds true if
>    you read some of the official translations.

Yes, that is a good point.

This is why usually it's a good idea to look back at the etymology of
a word.

In both words the etymology goes back to Latin, and since I speak
Spanish I can grasp pretty clearly what is meant in the four cases
{English,Spanish}{respect,tolerance}.

From my point of view it's really simple:

 a. Respect: hold in high regard
 b. Tolerance: endure

Whether it's "respect" (English), or "respeto" (Spanish), doesn't really
change the meaning. Same with "tolerance" and "tolerancia".

>    In the language I speak natively this reading of "respect" doesn't
>    agree with your interpretation.

We would need to see which interpretation you are talking about.

One example to show the difference is that you are supposed to hold in
high regard (respect) your parents, or the King, whereas in a Thanksgiving dinner
you are supposed to endure (tolerate) your uncle talking about conspiracy
theories.

These are of course culturally-specific examples. But I hope you get the
point.

How is it different in Icelandic?

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras