Events that are “all community” events are what this thread is talking about should have this nuance to ensure inclusion
As I said in the 1st message : “So in order to avoid scope creep, I think it should be only for Flock, not for others Fedora events”. Others events would need others guidelines, as the context is not the same.
As a sidebar to my bit of a rant, does it make sense that we also consider Accessibility requirements? Elevators, considerations for hotel spaces, etc?
It would make sense (as I mentioned in my initial message as well), but again, I think we should avoid scope creep. I think that trying to cover everything is what prevented completion of the last attempt to get a event guide focused on DEI (the one from 2018-ish time, if my memory serve me well, from the previous iteration of the team).
The proposal is a light touch directed process as a starting point, and that’s on purpose. The initial questions should be rather simple yes/no questions in order to get the structure in place, and once that’s done (eg, once the idea of having some criteria is accepted, written and applied ), there is nothing that prevent from adding more.
Evaluating accessibility of a venue would be a rather different process than what I propose, as it would need to happen at a different time of the selection process. You can’t evaluate accessibility from afar, as you can’t rely on people saying “we are accessible” for 2 reasons: accessibility norms are different around the world, and there is often a difference between what is said and what is on the ground. (because I think that officially, we assume it would be fine as that’s already a obligation in most of the place we go). On top of that, for Flock, there is also the issue of the evening events, where you may not have a professional staff that can spend hours answering questions.
But people should be free to start discussing that as long as it doesn’t block simpler requirements from being adopted.
My logic here is always you change minds by showing strength and vibrancy - and I would love to see Fedora be a safe place where community can thrive, even where it can be a risk just to be who you are.
My reasoning stem from noticing that the number of protests against what I would call “diversity washing” is growing. Communities are increasingly stating they want to be more diverse and work toward that with some results. That’s good. However, this result also in a growing amount of intra-group protest related to event locations (for example: Linux Foundation with Austin in 2022, Wikimedia Foundation in 2022 for Singapor, 2019 for a event in Tunis, 2018 in NC, 2008 in Egypt, Openstreetmap in 2024 for nairobi, a few time inside Red Hat, etc).
I think this will happen more and more, as every community tend to follow the same trends (see CoC adoption as a example ).
So the choice is between “doing nothing until it hit like a brick”, or “anticipate”. My proposal aim to anticipate that, and have Fedora display a serious commitment on DEI. And it also reduce the risk of a social media storm, something that sponsors tend to not like at all.
I disagree that having Flock in a “bad” location would change minds, or at least, not at the scale that would offset the bad PR we would face, nor the chilling effect on people in the community. As a event, Flock bring at most 200 people (I counted ~119 in 2023 on eventbrite ). Most of the them are not locals, and most of the locals coming to Flock are also already connected to Fedora in some way.
Flock is a rather inward facing event, so there isn’t much strength to show. There is some more outward facing ones where organizers contact the local press, convince local politicians to give speech, etc. I think have the potential to change minds. But Flock is not that kind of event.
I also disagree that this proposal would accidentally exclude participation. Not because it wouldn’t, but because it realistically wouldn’t exclude more than what we do now. As soon as a location is picked, we are limited by budget among others.
Of course, adding more constraint might mean having to say no to a proposal of a cheap event in Baku, Azerbaijan and being forced to do a more expensive one in Valetta, Malta (to take the 2 European extreme of the map compiled by ILGA Europe ). But that’s also the point, because what would it say of the community DEI efforts if in the end, that’s just tossed aside when it get inconvenient ?