Re: Reminder: Unsuitable language & Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct

In his note, Joe Andrieu made reference to a particular world-view:

> Mussolini's moral foundation of fascism: without power, policy doesn't
> matter and groups are more powerful than individuals, THEREFORE,
> individuals only have moral authority insofar as their actions align with
> the group, which in his case meant the state.

He did not use the term "fascism" as a pejorative, rather, he referred to
it as an instance of a philosophy that he believes incorporates the idea
that concerned him. I can't see how this would be seen as any more
objectionable than the often made observation that by reducing the
government's role in the realm of currency, some cryptocurrencies are
thought to appeal to the beliefs of Libertarians (a political philosophy
that I oppose strenuously).

One might argue about whether or not Andrieu is correct in his
understanding of fascism, but I think it improper to object to the mere
mention of fascism. Had Andrieu used "fascist" merely as a slur, without
elaboration or explanation, I would be more open to the suggestion that he
had overstepped the line. But, that is not the case in this instance.

bob wyman

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:01 AM Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote:

> Joe,
> Thanks, this is helpful, and I agree that this is a highly
> problematic time for any nuanced conversation where the precise meanings of
> words matter, and unfortunately some of our greatest looming issues depend
> on nuance and clear discussion to solve.
>
> I really like your tie back to the ethical web principles as a framework
> to look at that Moxie post.  That is a view that we should look at clearly
> as a community and is a great way to tackle the issues in the post head on
> in a way that avoids some of the more emotional responses that we
> unfortunately are seeing all over the place right now.
>
> Mike Prorock
> CTO, Founder
> https://mesur.io/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:49 AM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Mike.
>>
>> I appreciate the clarification that at least one of the alleged offenses
>> was, in fact, my use of the term "fascist".
>>
>> I also appreciate the clarification that my message was not seen by the
>> chairs as a violation of the CEPC.
>>
>> I stand by my use of that term in a respectful conversation about the
>> arguments put forth by Moxie Marlinspike and recently celebrated by others
>> on this list. Their arguments should not be celebrated, IMO, and I believe
>> I have explained in a respectful manner why I hold that opinion.
>>
>> I also feel we have likely exhausted this forum as a useful place for
>> discussing these issues. While Tzviya did not review the communications in
>> question, she did help clarify that terms that *might *be offensive to
>> anyone in the international W3C community are not welcome.
>>
>> Since I don't see a way to continue a conversation that is literally
>> about the embedded fascism in certain technical architectures without using
>> what is apparently an offensive term, I'll move that conversation to a
>> community that can more effectively engage on the issue.
>>
>> It saddens me that the W3C would censure the use of critical terminology
>> in the midst of global disruption caused by forces using the same tactics
>> and arguments as those responsible for outrageous historical
>> offenses--tactics and arguments which are most aptly described using that
>> censured terminology. I sincerely hope that those who champion the W3C as
>> an organization taking a stand for good will consider the following W3C
>> Ethical Web Principles in opposing the notion that individuals don't
>> deserve the ability to run their own servers.
>> https://w3ctag.github.io/ethical-web-principles/
>>
>> 2.2 The web should not cause harm to society
>> 2.3 The web must support healthy community and debate
>> 2.4 The web is for all people
>> 2.5 Security and privacy are essential
>> 2.6 The web must enable freedom of expression
>> 2.7 The web must make it possible for people to verify the information
>> they see
>> 2.8 The web must enhance individuals' control and power
>>
>> Seems to me that Moxie's arguments run contrary to at least these seven
>> Ethical Web Principals, no matter what terms you use to make that case.
>>
>> -j
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, at 6:06 AM, Mike Prorock wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>> A lot to unpack here, and I will miss a few things, though not
>> intentionally.
>>
>> First a few notes from my perspective as a chair, and I believe as to why
>> Heather chimed in and I fully support her comment.
>> 1) There have been multiple uses of language on the mailing list lately
>> that have been quite inflammatory to some audiences, including use of the
>> term Fascism
>> 2) We should try to be cognizant of how things will be perceived by
>> others, and if we can avoid politically charged language we should.
>> 3) We should be looking at this mailing list as a way to advance common
>> goals related to technical standards for the greater adoption of
>> technologies that increase self sovereignty, privacy, and security, and to
>> discuss technical issues related to work items within the CCG.
>>
>> In this case, Heather posted as a top level thread that some concern has
>> been raised, on and off list by members of the community, that certain
>> items have been taken as offensive.
>>
>> You will note that Heather did not state that those items were a
>> violation of the CEPC, only that "All members of the CCG agree to abide by
>> the Code of Ethics and
>> Professional Conduct" (
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2022Jan/0243.html
>> )
>>
>> Can we as chairs do better? always.  In this case however, I would not
>> take it as a personal attack, and If you want to hop on a direct call with
>> myself, Heather, or both of us; or to discuss the topic on a CCG call, as
>> always, we are happy to facilitate.
>>
>> On the practical matter of how reported concerns related to or violations
>> of the CEPC are currently being handled by the Chairs:
>> In general if there is a clear violation of the CEPC that individual will
>> be reached out to directly by the chairs, and most often, if the matter is
>> serious enough, a quick call is usually all it takes to discuss the issue
>> and resolve it.  If it is a minor issue, there might be a quick note out to
>> the list or on a related github comment that basically says "guys, we agree
>> on way more than we disagree on, and have some really important common
>> goals here, lets try and get along and if possible avoid offending folks".
>> That latter should act as a self reflection point, and I would not take it
>> as a personal attack, especially if, as in this case, it is noted right up
>> front that there was clear good intention.  The chairs need some practical
>> way if approached by individuals from the community to say "let's be
>> mindful" and acknowledge some concern, without trying to kill the
>> conversation, which in relation to this topic and post, I at least have no
>> desire of doing.    If for some reason there is repeat behaviour that is
>> highly problematic that individual might be referred to a W3C Ombuds to
>> help identify and avoid repeat issues.
>>
>> Mike Prorock
>> CTO, Founder
>> https://mesur.io/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>>                      joe@legreq.com
>> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>>      +1(805)705-8651
>> Do what matters.
>>                    http://legreq.com
>> <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
>>
>>
>>