[FOSDEM] messages missing/changed (was: Academic Freedom vs CoC at FOSDEM)

[Ewan Higgs]

WIth love and respect to all, the first message on the topic confused me:

 https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2021q4/003272.html

It sounds like a whole bunch of context is missing so I assumed my mail
client threaded it incorrectly.

Here are archive links...
https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2022q1/date.html
https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2021q4/date.html

It seems like I'm not missing any messages according to the archives. With
this in mind, I think the original discussion proposal was not phrased
clearly so most people seem to be staying quiet too many questions on the
same topic.

My proposal for this thread:
1. Is the fundamental question being answered which should be archived for
future people to be referred to? If so, what is that question?
2. If there is no fundamental question and it's an exploratory discussion,
please try Libera chat #fosdem channel to explore the topic space and then
move it to email when you need an archived resolution of the discussion.

And with that, I am going to go back to lurking.

I'm looking forward to FOSDEM 22! Keep up the amazing work everyone!

Kind Regards,
Ewan


On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 at 15:53, Jasper Nuyens <jnuyens at linuxbe.com> wrote:

> Dear,
>
> I both respect Daniel and Wouter, but I have no clue what this is all
> about.
> Maybe the gmail relay has f*cked up the beginning of the conversation
> like it did in the past.
> And as this isn't really a very constructive addition to the
> discussion, I just want to wish everybody a respectful fucking 2022!
> ;-)
>
> Cheers guys, and if there's anything I can do to help make this
> edition into another great success for Free and OpenSource software,
> let me know!
>
> Consider this an attempt to lighten things up and a reminder that one
> day we will all have a beer together!
> Jasper
> --
> Jasper Nuyens
> Managing Director, Linux Belgium
> http://www.linuxbe.com
> Phone: +32 (0)2 747 47 01
> Fax: +32 (0)2 747 47 10
> GSM: +32 (0)478 978967
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 3:14 PM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/01/2022 09:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > > You have made your point. The FOSDEM team disagrees with you. The code
> > > of conduct is not going to go away, and you are expected to abide by
> it.
> >
> > i was sufficiently alarmed by seeing this to step in and comment.
> >
> > over the years i have been regularly subjected to censorship by
> > FOSS groups, enough to have a handle on why they do it.  it
> > comes down to a conflation between "asking difficult questions"
> > there is an automatic tendency to assume "the PERSON is difficult".
> >
> > by making people feel "uncomfortable" because they're being
> > challenged to face up to difficult realities, they automatically
> > assume that they are PERSONALLY being attacked, and respond
> > by attacking the speaker, personally.
> >
> > in more recent times with the [often toxic] Conductment Codes in
> > place the conflation gets worse: raising a difficult topic is assumed
> > to be a Conductment violation.
> >
> > it therefore comes down to respect for each other as PEOPLE
> >
> > on various lists over the past 4 years, i've witnessed that
> > Daniel has no fear of personal consequences when asking difficult
> > questions, whereas many people - far from not *wishing* to engage
> > with those difficult questions are simply too afraid to do so publicly.
> > thus we may *not* conclude that the "lack of response indicates
> > nobody wishes to hear about it"
> >
> > so the reasons that i am alarmed at the direction of this conversation
> > has nothing to do with the actual topic, it has to do with peoples'
> > reactions *to* the questions that Daniel is asking.
> >
> > in the spirit of FOSDEM i would very much like to see everyone
> > treated with respect and understanding, particularly when someone
> > is brave enough to raise difficult and challenging topics that
> > most of us are not comfortable facing or considering.
> >
> > l.
> > _______________________________________________
> > FOSDEM mailing list
> > FOSDEM at lists.fosdem.org
> > https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem
> _______________________________________________
> FOSDEM mailing list
> FOSDEM at lists.fosdem.org
> https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/attachments/20220111/0d636b6e/attachment-0001.html>