A diversity statement for Ubuntu
with 42 comments
The Ubuntu website states that “we aim to make Ubuntu a wonderful place to participate”. We developed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct to set a standard for participants to accept each other in the spirit of cooperation, and have improved it over time to state these principles more clearly.
It is implicit in our philosophy that these and other Ubuntu values should hold equally true for everyone. I would like to propose that we upgrade this to an explicit statement on behalf of the project.
I have spoken with many people who were interested in joining a free software project, but were put off because they felt unwelcome. I know various people who participate in Ubuntu today, but sometimes face difficult social obstacles in order to do so. Going forward, I would like for us, as members of the Ubuntu community, to make the extra effort to accept all kinds of people. This may sound simple, but it can be very difficult to put into practice. People often don’t even notice they’ve gotten it wrong, until the offended party points it out to them. We need tools and guidance to make this a reality.
To that end, I would like to propose a diversity statement for Ubuntu. This draft has already received support from a majority of the Community Council, but I’d like to take it a step further. Because I want this to be a commitment that we can all stand behind, I’m also calling for support from the community as a whole. Please give this issue your consideration, and let me know in the comments if you can get on board with an official statement like this. The more support we have, the more real this commitment can be.
Here’s the text. Many thanks to Mary Gardiner, Valerie Aurora and Benjamin Mako Hill for their review and input.
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).
Written by Matt Zimmerman
February 7, 2011 at 15:55
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with Community, Feminism, Free software, Ubuntu
42 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
-
Please don’t get me wrong, I think it *is* very important that we treat people the best we can, but… to be honest, it kind of gets rediculous how there’s a new post like that about every few weeks, as if we needed any more statements like that and would not behave the way without them. Kind of like people that actually think there would be chaos if that weird book called bible didn’t say something about not killing other people. I think most people are actually very friendly within the free software community, and then there are some that are not, who might still contribute valueable work and won’t change their minds based off some statement on a website anyway.
I know this sounds a bit negative on my side, this was not my intention…
d2kx
February 7, 2011 at 16:31
Reply-
Thanks for your feedback.
We’ve seen that relying on an implicit social contract isn’t enough, and have had some success with formally codifying the kind of community we want.
If there weren’t a problem with the status quo, believe me, I wouldn’t be agitating for change. :-) Unfortunately, there is a seemingly endless stream of incidents in the community (not only in Ubuntu) which show that we can’t take this for granted.
Matt Zimmerman
February 7, 2011 at 16:47
Reply-
I like your intentions on this, but I think it’s rather naïve to believe that such a statement would improve the kind of chronically socially inept people that typically cause those kind of problems.
I concede that the Ubuntu CoC is wildly successful, it probably makes 95% of people who read it try to live up to it and be a better community member. For the rest, there’s probably nothing you can do for them. You just can’t fix everyone. #sadfactoflife
Jonathan Carter
February 7, 2011 at 22:48
Reply
-
-
d2kx, I was going to comment directly on the OP myself, but then I found that your comment already contained most things I had planned to write.
Seriously, a diversity statement for a free software project? Next will be a call to appoint an equal opportunity official, I presume?! Better invest that free resources in tighter organization of the entire Ubuntu ecosystem. As has been stated before, the idea that a simple statement on a website (which 95% of people wouldn’t even read, for starters) would change the way people act is simply ludicrous:
“I was planning to troll the Ubuntu forums with racist and sexist comments, flaunting my imaginary superiority 24/7… but then, unfortunately, I discovered the Ubuntu social contract – which explicitly says I can’t :(“
Jens
February 8, 2011 at 07:20
Reply-
To respond to this and all of the other “but these are just words” comments:
The document is merely a tool to get agreement on what kind of community we want to be. Naturally, it’s up to the members of the community to make it reality. That’s why I’m asking for support. This won’t work if it’s merely blessed by the government; people need to believe that it’s the right thing for the community.
To your first point, this *is* investing in the Ubuntu ecosystem. That ecosystem isn’t made of bits, but of people, and so social issues are a very important part of Ubuntu’s success.
Matt Zimmerman
February 8, 2011 at 08:22
Reply
-
-
-
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matt Zimmerman, Penelope Stowe, Devilicus, Ubuntu World Wide, Arjan Waardenburg and others. Arjan Waardenburg said: Matt Zimmerman: A diversity statement for Ubuntu: The Ubuntu website states that “we aim to make Ubuntu a wonder… bit.ly/hjls4n [...]
Tweets that mention A diversity statement for Ubuntu « We'll see | Matt Zimmerman -- Topsy.com
February 7, 2011 at 16:47
Reply -
Hi,
I can definitely stand behind the sentiment expressed here. I am however a little unsure about
We are committed to being a community that everyone feels good about joining.
I think I can see the sentiment here, but I’m not sure that we can live up to it. There are some people who would not feel good about joining our community, not because of the way they would be treated, but because they don’t like the things that Ubuntu is doing. I can’t think of a better wording right now, and I may be the only one that reads it that way.
Thanks,
James
James Westby
February 7, 2011 at 16:48
Reply-
Yes, I guess I took it as implicit that this applies to people who want to join. It’s a difficult balance though, and we don’t want to give ourselves too easy an excuse by excluding people who “don’t like the way we do things”.
Here’s something I said to the CC when I proposed the idea:
“As a community, we share many characteristics, in whole or in part. Some of these are fundamental, such as sharing the values of the project, like promoting free software. Others are not fundamental to our purpose, such as age, gender identity, biological traits, socioeconomic status, and so on.
In order to promote inclusiveness, we should ensure that people who share our fundamental values are not deterred from contributing to the project simply because they happen to differ from the majority in other ways. In order to achieve this, we must both establish a consensus on inclusiveness within the project, and effectively communicate this outward to potential contributors.”
Matt Zimmerman
February 7, 2011 at 16:52
Reply-
Rather than “can feel good about joining”, how about “feels welcome”? I think that variation works well: everyone can feel welcome, even if they don’t actually want to join.
Anonymous
February 7, 2011 at 17:31
Reply -
Hi Matt,
That’s good. I’d actually support some form of that in the statement itself if you think it is appropriate.
Thanks,
James
James Westby
February 7, 2011 at 17:37
Reply
-
-
-
Thank you so much. Yes, we need this. I like the wording too, I guess it’s hard not making it sound too formal.
Nicola Larosa
February 7, 2011 at 16:59
Reply -
Even though statements like these all too often are simply paying lip service, I am still glad that the project is considering this. Putting it in writing gives us a standard to which we can be held accountable. While the words might not mean much on their own, making an explicit statement of our principles at least gives us something to strive towards. It’s up to all of us to ensure that our actions live up to our words.
I do have one question though. Why not role this into the Code of Conduct itself? I’m not sure what’s more powerful, having this statement stand on its own not buried in with other topics or incorporating it into the document that all us Ubuntu members have explicitly committed to?
andrewsomething
February 7, 2011 at 17:46
Reply-
It is very much my intent that this be a meaningful commitment, upheld by a sincere desire for a healthy community, and definitely not mere lip service. To this end, it does include some behavioral elements as well as statements of principle. If you feel this could be improved, I’m open to suggestions.
Mako and I talked about it in relation to the code of conduct, and it’s still possible that it will end up there, though we want to keep that document short and to the point.
I’m mainly concerned with getting consensus on the principle, and then we can worry about where exactly to publish and maintain it.
Matt Zimmerman
February 7, 2011 at 19:06
Reply
-
-
I think the general sentiment is good, but there are people, like me for one, who the token word and policy of “Diversity” has meant an uphill battle for university admissions, scholarships, and even hiring.
I worry that this policy will have the side effect of chasing away genuinely interested people, especially the unfortunate among us (like me) who are not considered “diverse” individuals.
Kevin
February 7, 2011 at 18:15
Reply-
I realize some people may have negative associations with this and other political issues, but I feel strongly enough that it’s important that we need to overcome them.
I would expect the normative parts of the statement to be pretty uncontroversial, e.g. responding to concerns in a respectful way, applying the rules to everyone equally, etc.
Whoever you are, our goal is certainly not to chase you away. We want to welcome everyone, so long as they are willing to treat others in the project well.
Matt Zimmerman
February 7, 2011 at 19:04
Reply
-
-
A general suggestion on wording, inspired by the comment Kevin made above: the word “Diversity” seems most often associated with efforts that don’t agree with the philosophy of this document. In particular, it often seems to have negative connotations, or at least the connotation of “we want the appearance of diversity”, or “we want to satisfy requirements for diversity”.
I would suggest another choice of terminology, such as an “anti-discrimination policy”. That seems more to the point, in any case.
Anonymous
February 7, 2011 at 19:45
Reply-
I guess I tend to want to state these things positively (what kind of community we want) rather than negatively (what kind of community we DON’T want). The Code of Conduct isn’t an anti-misbehavior policy.
A negative definition makes sense for something like an anti-harassment policy, which targets a fairly specific issue, but for general community guidelines I definitely prefer positive wording.
I’m not too attached to the naming; the important thing is to get consensus on the intent. If folks get behind that, it won’t matter what we call it. If they don’t, then a different name won’t help.
Matt Zimmerman
February 8, 2011 at 08:27
Reply
-
-
One minor wording suggestion for this document: you say “If someone has been harmed or offended, it is our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, and do our best to right the wrong.”. I’d like to suggest that this should say “and do our best to right any wrong which has occurred.”.
Rationale: If someone has been harmed, something wrong has *always* occurred. If someone has been offended, something wrong may have occurred. This makes it our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, find out if something wrong actually happened, and if so take steps to address it. I think the minor rephrasing I’ve suggested would avoid implying that something wrong has *always* happened if someone gets offended, while also preserving the statement that we will always listen carefully and respectfully to someone’s concerns and determine an appropriate response.
Does that seem reasonable?
Anonymous
February 7, 2011 at 19:54
Reply-
My intent would be for the offended party to be given the benefit of the doubt. It’s easy for someone with greater privilege in the community to overlook their own offense. It’s true that in some cases it may be a non-issue, but this kind of thing is in the eye of the beholder.
I thought about adding something like that explicitly, but this wording seemed to get the idea across. I’m open to suggestions for better wording though.
If I’m riding the subway and someone tells me I stepped on their foot, I don’t investigate whether I actually did or not. I just apologize to them. :-) The goal is not to try to establish truth, but to build a healthy culture where people treat each other well.
Matt Zimmerman
February 8, 2011 at 08:35
Reply-
I agree entirely with your first two sentences; I tried to suggest a wording change that I thought would preserve that property.
Regarding your last paragraph, sadly most issues that would encounter this policy prove more complex than stepping on someone’s foot. I don’t want to imply that many issues need extensive investigation rather than just a simple recognition and apology. I simply think it seems like a good idea to suggest that we first and foremost want to right any wrongs which have occurred, rather than automatically assuming that any instance of someone getting offended automatically means a wrong has occurred. At the same time, I want to avoid allowing that particular distinction turn into any implication that we won’t take every offense seriously and react appropriately. Thus, I intentionally avoided explicitly saying anything like “determine whether a wrong has occurred”, or any phrases with the same implication as “allegations”. I simply added the statement that we will “right any wrongs which have occurred”; I think that gives the strong impression that we’ll gi
-
-