<div dir="ltr">Serge's original statement of the problem is the source of this derail:<div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">> The current mailing list CoC proposes public shaming and a "three </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">strikes" rule</span><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div>No: the CoC doesn't advise propose "public shaming".</div><div><br></div>> First occurrence: We’ll give you a friendly, but public reminder that the behavior is inappropriate according to our guidelines.<div><br></div><div>This is not public shaming: it is simply reminding the mailing list as a whole of the rules that everyone needs to follow.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Frederik Ramm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank">frederik@remote.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On 10/10/2014 05:24 PM, Tom MacWright wrote:<br>
> There are certainly cases in which people's behavior or style will<br>
> diverge from the norm for reasons outside of their control, but given<br>
> the current content and intention of the CoC, that situation will be<br>
> dealt with appropriately and humanely.<br>
<br>
</span>I understood the current content of the CoC to suggest calling out<br>
offending behaviour publicly as the first step.<br>
<br>
Serge then suggested that this might not be the right approach when<br>
dealing with neurodivergent people.<br>
<br>
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we shouldn't worry<br>
about details as long as the intention is right.<br>
<br>
To me it seems that this whole CoC discussion is about writing down what<br>
one would assume to be self-evident, namely that we don't want to be<br>
assholes.<br>
<br>
Under these circumstances it strikes me as odd to argue for writing down<br>
one thing (namely, public calling out of offenders) while at the same<br>
time assuming that if push came to shove, people would do the decent<br>
thing (in this case, not calling out the offender publicly because they<br>
offended due to a condition outside of their control).<br>
<br>
This whole discussion is about *not* assuming that people do the decent<br>
thing by themselves, isn't it?<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
Bye<br>
Frederik<br>
<br>
--<br>
Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
diversity-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org">diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>