- From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:34:00 -0400
- To: Marnanel Thurman <marnanel@thurman.org.uk>
- Cc: public-swicg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAA1s49UZ1kh2cSB4RmAG4J=YHB-vd4vFFWQrs2iH3f6tzzdBOg@mail.gmail.com>
Marnanel asks: > "Shall we ask around on the fediverse for people who can contribute with > perspective?" Of course! But, which perspectives should we seek? Jon's note only mentioned perspectives arising from diversity of sex, gender, or other inherited characteristics But, there are many other influences that intersect to create unique, valuable, and addressable perspectives. Gamers, chemists, teachers, users of accessibility features, merchants, non-English speakers, operators of disaster response systems, and many others will have, in addition to many common interests, usefully diverse interests that might, or even should, be considered by those developing SocialWeb standards. I think we should recognize that seeking diverse perspectives is not like collecting stamps. To some, the value of a stamp collection may be measured by its exhaustive completeness, but that isn't the best metric for what we need to inform SocialWeb specifications. We must accept that not all voices will or can be heard. Also, many perspectives, even when diverse in some ways, are likely to lay similar requirements on SocialWeb systems. Further, we should recognize that many in the community of developers have extensive experience, sometimes accumulated over decades, in hearing and addressing a great variety of often conflicting interests. This means that we can and should, to some extent, rely on these experienced developers to represent the needs and interests of those who are either unaware of the opportunity to speak for themselves or who don't yet understand the value in doing so. It is much easier to build a system that addresses the needs of a small community. The SocialWeb is not small. It is the largest community one could imagine. We should seek to address the widest possible range of needs, but we should also recognize that we will have always left something undone. Fortunately, we can address this problem iteratively. bob wyman On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:50 PM Marnanel Thurman <marnanel@thurman.org.uk> wrote: > > > On 22 September 2023 06:03:59 BST, Jon Pincus <jon@achangeiscoming.net> > wrote: > >My input: it would be a huge mistake to charter a WG, define its scope, > or even start a task force before getting a broader range of perspectives > /and /finding a way to ensure diverse participation. > > > >If you want to create decentralized social networks that are good for > Black and Indigenous people, women of color, trans and non-binary people, > and others who are marginalized and exploited by today's centralized and > commercial social networks ... you need to involve them in the discussion. > That isn't currently happening. I've followed this list for several months > and I rarely hear perspectives from women, Black or Indigenous people, or > trans and non-binary people. I don't think I've /ever /heard a perspective > from a woman of color or trans person of color. > > > >That's a problem that needs to be addressed before moving forward. > > This is a really important point. Shall we ask around on the fediverse > for people who can contribute with perspective? > > M > -- > Who would stoop to be fearless— like a tree? > >
Received on Friday, 22 September 2023 17:34:19 UTC