Re: My input for tomorrow

Thanks, Maramel.  And Bob, I'm not suggesting collecting stamps.  I'm 
suggesting that discussions about a working group's charter, 
composition, and practices need to meaningfully incorporates these 
perspectives.  An example to make things concrete ...

Many Black and Indigenous people that the amount of racism they have to 
deal with is /worse /on the fediverse than Twitter -- which is saying a 
lot!  The current AP spec is silent on this issue.

  * Will addressing this be part of the charter for a WG?
  * If so, how will you get experts from the communities who are most
    affected by harassment, and most knowledgeable about what techniques
    will and won't work in practice, to participate in the WG without
    asking for free labor from marginalzed people?

Even if the decision winds up being no, that's out of scope, the 
decision needs to be made with involvement from the people who are being 
affected by racialized harassment.

And I just picked this issue because I know it's a very high priority; 
there may well be other high priorities that also needed to be discussed.


> On 22 September 2023 18:34:00 BST Bob Wyman <> wrote:
> 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.
> With respect, I think you miss the point of what Jon and I were saying 
> here. Jon's original post said we were missing the perspective of:
> "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"
> Chemists (qua chemists) are not people who are marginalised and 
> exploited; neither are most of the other categories you list. But the 
> categories in Jon's list are of people who are routinely spoken over 
> in society, and who we therefore need to ensure we're listening to.
> (We should certainly be seeking input from chemists and gamers and 
> whatever as well, but that's orthogonal to the first point.)
> M
> -- 
> Who would stoop to be fearless— like a tree?

Received on Saturday, 23 September 2023 17:21:11 UTC