Diversity statement for Ubuntu

Posted 9 Feb 2011 at 07:36 UTC by chalst Share This

mdz is drafting, with the help of Valerie Aurora, hypatia, and mako, a diversity statement for Ubuntu, and is seeking comments on the current draft.

Excuse the link to external content, but the topic of diversity within Ubuntu has been one of the livelier topics here in the last of couple of years and a thread on the value and wording of such a statement is, I think, good for us.

The current draft of the statement reads:

The Ubuntu project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. We are committed to being a community that everyone feels good about joining. Although we may not be able to satisfy everyone, we will always work to treat everyone well.

Standards for behavior in the Ubuntu community are detailed in the Code of Conduct and Leadership Code of Conduct. We expect participants in our community to meet these standards in all their interactions and to help others to do so as well.

Whenever any participant has made a mistake, we expect them to take responsibility for it. If someone has been harmed or offended, it is our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, and do our best to right the wrong.

Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honor diversity in age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity or expression, language, national origin, neurotype, phenotype, political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, subculture, and technical ability.

Some of the ideas and wording for this statement were based on diversity statements from the Python community and Dreamwidth Studios (CC-BY-SA 3.0).


slightly off topic, posted 10 Feb 2011 at 14:45 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

Google kills H.264 support in chrome

and Simon says it ain't bad for me. I don't quite get his rhetoric.

In software development, diversity statement should target at supporting more hardware vendors/computing languages/industrial standards etc...

enforcement of diversity ---> indictment ? , posted 25 Feb 2011 at 20:48 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

life throws funny twists, for Ryan Harris, to say the least.

judging protests --> public peace? objective moral order?, posted 2 Mar 2011 at 18:01 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

I am reading this book 'The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty' by Michael Davis. p196.
Conclusion:
The Declaration of the Rights of Man made "public order as established by law" the only criterion for restricting the public expression of religious belief. Public order within this context is eveidently equivalent to public peace in the sense used by Pope Pius IX in Quanta cura. In both cases this can be taken to mean conduct which would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace in the sense this term is used in English law.
In Dignitatis humanae, also, the term public order is used as the criterion for restricting the public expression of religious belief, but its meaning is carefully defined and is considerably wider than the public order of the French Revolution and the public peace of Pope Pius IX. This is due in particular to the inclusion of "the objective moral order" as a criterion for government intervention upon the insistence of Archbishop Wojtyla.
Within the context of Dignitatis humane:
1. Public order is the fundamental component of the common good, and it can be violated:
2. by infringing the rights of others or the peaceful settlement of those rights;
3. by harming public peace;
4. by violating the objective moral order.

p194
Whatever Dignitatis humane might stipulate concerning the objective moral order, the criterion which would be adopted in virtually every Christian country, with the exception of Ireland, would be Father Murray's criterion of "commonly accepted standards of public morality"(page 78). In other words, the reality would be the adoption of moral standards acceptable to the majority of the people, the French Revolutionary ideal. This has meant, in practice, that, since the Council, even in countries with a large majority of Catholic citizens, divorce, contraception, abortion, pornography, and unnatural vice have been legalized. When governments no longer legislate in accordance with the objective moral norms of the Catholic Church, Father Murray's "commonly accepted standards of morality" soon become commonly accepted standards of immorality. Archbishop Wojtyla's amendment to Article 7 must, then, be welcomed but, alas, regarded as of no practical value in upholding the objective moral order in the crumbling ruins of Western Christianity.

Recently, there are reports on these two dissenters after many years lapsed. I find the resurgence of their publicity in the media interesting to reflect when they changed their positions naturally.

1. "He was some yahoo who had the key to the Holy Grail"

2. A victory for free speech

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

X
Share this page