Anatomy of an ableism

[pauamma]

2022-05-10: entry is now public.

Summary

The leader of a FreeBSD work group that substantially controlled my documentation contribution workflow dithered, delayed, then eventually declined to pick accessibility low-hanging fruit like using IRC instead of video for work group meetings. He expected me instead to take on the substantial burden of finding transcription service providers, figuring out costs, writing a grant request, waiting for approval, then (presumably) managing or supervising that effort, instead of doing directly productive work in that work group (which would have been unlikely to wait for me) or elsewhere in the project.

The FreeBSD project's main official governing body itself (which appears indifferent to ableism and to enabling ableism by others, and may well be ableist itself) declined to help, on the grounds that it is common practice in our industry and on the project to use video conferencing in order to organize and run remote meetings, and we expect that practice to continue indefinitely.

Personal background

All video makes me uncomfortable (to varying degrees) because there's usually more to keep track of in real time than I can, so I end up missing some, and anxiety means dreading that whatever I missed will of course be essential to most everyone else's takes on it. When it comes to video-conferences specifically, Central Auditory Processing Disorder (or something similar) and ADHD kick in. The effort to understand what's being said, figure out who's saying it, correlate that with background information on them so I can try filling in the blanks and connecting the dots, and remember who said what 10-30 seconds ago that it may be answering or related to, while trying to think of what I need or want to say either as my own topic or as a comment on someone else's, is just too much for me to deal with.

Involvement in the FreeBSD contributor community

I wandered into FreeBSD/390 (an attempt to port FreeBSD to IBM mainframe computers) in early December 2011 and offered to help. Shortly thereafter, I suffered a severe brain crash and had to walk away from it for what was left of my sanity, then the project was abandoned. Fast forward 8 years, and I'm a FreeBSD user again. Another 3 years, and I maintain an application's port, while contributing bug reports, content, and reviews to documentation and manual pages, with a bit of IRC-based user support on occasion.

Code of Conduct, violation reporting procedure, and process for dealing with reports

Code of Conduct in force when this started and at all times until today.

Reporting instructions and report handling process.

Detailed timeline of events

All dates are in UTC.

1. On June 9, 2020, the code of conduct was changed from a strong pro-victim version drawing from the Geek Feminism example policy to a much weaker, bothsidesist version. At that time, I brought up serious misgivings about both the new code of conduct itself and the process leading to its adoption. After some back and forth, I decided to stay for the time being.


2. On September 3, 2021, I learned about stage 2 of the git working group in 2 separate emails:
   
   • the first is a reply to a previous email which never makes it to freebsd-ports@, only one of the 3 lists I followed then. I replied asking where the meetings would take place (Doc type here (as you know). Where will these meetings happen? IRC? Some other text-based medium?), and to the best of my knowledge get no answer.
   • The second was a general announcement. In answer to that, I asked:

     1- Which IRC network and channel? geekshed.(mumble) #freebsd like the past few times?
     2- Will the whole thing including the discussions/panels take place on IRC, or is that only to ask questions and (if we're lucky) getting the answers transcribed?

     and got back from the group leader, on the same day:

     The office hours will use geek shed for questions and the discussion will be live on video streaming…
     
     How the group conducts business after that will largely be up to the group, so long as they make sure everybody knows how to participate.

     Note the so long as they make sure everybody knows how to participate, which distinctly doesn't say anything about ability to participate.


3. On September 4, 2021, I pointed that out:

   It would be better, IMO, if they made sure everyone *can* participate. By this I mean reframe it from essentially saying "Here's how we plan to set up communication. We hope it works for you." to explicitly asking "We want to make sure everyone can participate fully, even if their needs for accommodation inconvenience us or force us not to do things as we're used to or prefer. What do all of you need in order to participate fully?" I have mentioned that before.



4. On September 4, I got an answer including including:

   I’m sorry to hear that. It’s designed mostly to raise awareness and to get things started, so if you aren’t able to participate fully in that one meeting, there will be others that are scheduled more for the convenience of those wanting to participate.

   (Note the minimizing of the first meeting's inaccessibility and the scheduled more for the convenience bit (emphasis mine), as if scheduling and convenience were the issue.)
   
   then:

   I understand the difference here. I’d sent a quick reply that was maybe a bit too glib. We definitely do want to accomodate as many people participating as possible. I’ll make sure I covey more of that meaning in future messages.

   (Acknowledgement of mistake, promise to do better in the future. Good.)
   
   and finally So what are your answers to the questions that you’d like us to ask? What do you need to be able to participate fully? which I felt cautiously encouraged by.


5. On September 6, 2021, I replied trying to be accommodating of participants, present or future, for whom my need for a text-based medium would cause accessibility problems of their own, perhaps because of severe hand or wrist pain, difficulty typing fast enough or at all, and or inability to use speech recognition (difficulty speaking or no ability to speak at all):

   If it were me only, I would say "something wholly IRC-based". Doing that, however, would exclude people who have trouble typing fast enough - or at all - for any reason and for whom speech recognition isn't an option either. So, for maximum inclusiveness, and regardless of would-be participants needing these accommodations now, the best solution would be professional paid transcriptionists bridging between voice-only participants and text-only participants.
   
   (I was, 12-18 months ago, working on putting together a pitch to the FreeBSD Foundation on contracting transcriptionists and captioners, complete with costs info, before I had to put it on the back burner due to a combination of lack of time and energy for both that and contributing to docs, and moderate-to severe Covid-19 and general anxiety consuming substantial brainpower. If someone else could step in on that either to help me with that organizing effort or to take it over completely, that would be great. But this may be better discussed separately and or on another mailing list. Suggestions welcome.)

   Note my request for someone to help with or take over organizing transcriptionists. This will become relevant later.
   
   And that was the end of that part of the discussion.


6. On September 11, 2021, the working group leader sent an email to people who had registered interest, announcing a video call on September 13 from 5pm to 6pm and including I'll setup an IRC channel as well, since that seems to be a good way to chat, especially for people who may have difficulty speaking English at full speed for whatever reason, but have contributions to make. We'll likely need a mailing list. An IRC channel and mailing list were created (or rather, existing ones were repurposed for these ends) and announced, but (getting ahead of myself) the working group leader never attempted to use the IRC channel for working group meetings or gave any indication of seriously considering making an attempt to.


7. On September 13, 2021, despite misgivings, I tried attending that video meeting, and predictably had to bail out to avoid brainmelt less than 10 minutes in. The only reaction to that was we're sorry to hear that from a participant when I announced that in IRC.


8. On October 20, 2021, there was another meeting that I was not made able to take part in meaningfully. Instead of interacting with the others, seeing what they said to each other and in answer to each other, and being able to interject my own comments and voice my own concerns before the group reached consensus on any agenda item, I was relegated to seeing point after settled point show up on the shared document that would become the meeting conclusions. I wasn't even able to add my own opinions to others' on any point, for lack of a clear view of how they had formed their opinions and on what basis and background knowledge.


9. On October 27, 2021, the working group leader sent a reminder of that day's meeting, third (or fourth if you count the September 13 one) to be held in a medium I couldn't use. I replied asking when will be the first meeting in a format I can take part in?. The working group leader's "answer" asked I'm hoping to be able to do this in the future. What formats work for you? — the very question I had already answered several times. I pointed that out and requested a meeting postponement. My request was ignored. Thus, my attempts to raise the issue on the mailing list in parallel with the meeting minutes were met with lip service from the working group leader and silence from everyone else. Then after that meeting, I got the following /msg discussion with the working group leader:

   19:42 <bsdimp_> is now a good time to talk?
   19:46 <PauAmma> Not really. Going to eat soon, and I'm not sure what there is to talk about anyway.
   19:48 <bsdimp_> A question came up: google meet allows you to turn on closed captions that shows what people are saying. Do you know if you could read those and type into google meet's chat effectively? I know it's too many voices to process, but I thought I'd ask about doing that.
   19:48 <bsdimp_> It's not IRC, but might be a compromise that would let you participate.
   Day changed to 28 Oct 2021
   02:20 <PauAmma> Maybe, but I strongly doubt it. One of the reasons IRC works for me is that I have a permanent or semi-permanent record of others' words, with names conveniently attached to it, that I can refer to while composing my follow-up. Also, since I'm not a touch typist, I would miss anything said while I was typing.
   09:01 <PauAmma> BTW, this is one of the reasons I put in that "Very important note" section in https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-accessibility/2021-October/000000.html.
   23:28 -!- bsdimp_ [~bsdimp_@[address redacted]] has quit [Ping timeout: 615 seconds]



10. On November 1, 2021, I brought up the inaccessible meetings one more time, this time in the relevant EFnet IRC channel. The working group leader and another member (both of them then and now channel operators) brushed me off, essentially saying they didn't care and citing having more important work to do than paying attention to bullshit and victimhood.

    13:53 <@gjb_> bsdimp__: is the "git next steps" call the same timeslot this week? I've lost track of all the calls I have this week...
    14:10 < PauAmma> I think it's at a different time this week. Hold on.
    14:15 < PauAmma> Previous IRC discussion between bsdimp__ and lwhsu suggested within 1-3am UTC, but it doesn't look like a firm time yet.
    14:15 <@gjb_> ah, ok, thank you, PauAmma
    14:20 <@bsdimp__> gjb_ It's different this week. It will be I think 0200. I need to finalize that today with lwhsu and a couple others since I may need to bump it to 0300...
    14:21 <@gjb_> ok, cool. thanks.
    14:21 <@bsdimp__> gjb_ I need to shake things up a bit...
    14:21 <@gjb_> I may not be able to attend this week, but we'll see how things work out conflict-wise
    14:21 <@bsdimp__> gjb_ it's not critical.
    14:21 <@bsdimp__> gjb_ you are on git@, right?
    14:21 <@gjb_> I am
    14:22 <@gjb_> the call this week might actually end on time if I don't attend.. :)
    14:22 <@bsdimp__> gjb_ well, I don't know if I'd go that far.
    14:22 <@gjb_> hah
    14:50 < PauAmma> Where is it taking place this time?
    17:50 <@gjb_> As far as I am aware, it is still on Google Meet
    17:57 < PauAmma> *grumble*
    18:03 <@gjb_> I know, but unfortunately, we cannot always have everything 100% accessible for everyone all the time. Your complaint/concern about Google Meet has not fallen on deaf ears, however, for what it is worth.
    18:04 <_@gjb_> Alternative options are being investigated, nonetheless
    18:07 < PauAmma> "Alternative options are being investigated"??? What is there to investigate? I told bsdimp__ what would work for me. The only question is whether he's going to pay attention.
    18:10 <@gjb_> I am in no mood to get into an argument at the moment. I understand your concerns. I will stop there.
    18:22 < PauAmma> And I'm in no mood to get shafted a 3rd time. "Thrice is enemy operation", or so they say.
    18:24 <@gjb_> I will not engage further in this topic. Sorry, I have work to do.
    18:24 <@bsdimp__> You didn't get shafted the first two times. You didn't try to use the CC mode in google meet due to your ignorance of it and other extensions that can give, it is believed, a irc-like experience when coupled with the google meet chat.
    18:25 <@bsdimp__> to be fair, I was ignorant of that until I asked around
    18:28 <@gjb_> some people like mailing lists. some people hate them. some people like forums. some people hate them. some people like IRC. some people hate it. making everyone happy is impossible.
    18:29 <@gjb_> anyway, I will disengage from this conversation, because I can only try to be nice until trying to be nice stops working.

    Because they were channel operators and far senior to me in duration of project involvement, I didn't feel safe calling them on that, and had therefore no choice but to stop pressing it in channel. Note, however, the use of try to be nice as a thin veneer of reasonableness over deliberately avoiding and misrepresenting my point, and calling accessibility making everyone happy.


11. On November 2, I lodged a formal complaint by emailing the Code of Conduct enforcement group, which was acknowledged later that day. The explanation of the complaint-handling procedure led me to expect an answer or at least an update within a week. Nothing came.


12. On November 4, there was another meeting, set at a time that didn't suit me in order to accommodate the timezones of people who couldn't attend previous ones, so I didn't take part in it.


13. On December 6, 5 weeks later, I asked for an ETA for an answer.


14. On December 14, an answer email came, but not from the Code of Conduct enforcement group. Instead, it came from the group above it (elected by all FreeBSD committers for 2 years), to which I would normally have been able to appeal. The gist of the answer was:
    • while acknowledging that holding meetings in accessible formats was desirable, declining to make it a requirement or to improve the current process despite its known shortcomings, which were also minimized and attributed to tools, not culture (While core@ agrees that we should endeavor to make all of the project's meetings as accessible as possible, we are also a volunteer project with only so much resources and while perhaps some might say that the current state of our communication tooling isn't all that it can be, it is what we have now and what we have to work with.)
    
    
    • putting the labor burden of accommodation on me and the financial burden on the foundation collecting donations and allotting them to various activities (You had mentioned in the past that you had planned to approach the Foundation with a plan and costing to try to improve the situation. Core@ feels that this is your best avenue for improving the situation as the Foundation may be able to bring to bear new resources.)


15. On December 15, I replied expressing confusion and dismay at the procedural and substantive implications of the decision:
    
    
    • procedural, as the unexpected source for it essentially deprived me of an obvious way to appeal it, and therefore asking for clarification and requesting reconsideration
    
    
    • substantive, as it ignored the availability of IRC as a meeting medium that I had pointed out several times including in my complaint and because its refusal to intervene deprived me of a timely remedy in the form of ability to attend meetings without substantial investments of time and energy that could only bear fruit much too late, if at all
    
    
    Under 40 minutes later, I got back a perfunctory dismissal, briefly mentioning that the Code of Conduct committee was being reworked, that my complaint was without merit, and that they would not require other project members to use IRC.

After a few weeks hesitating and dreading retaliation if I spoke up, and 2 months spent slowly putting this together, I'm finally going ahead and publishing it, members-only for now so I can get some constructive feedback and advice before making it visible to the FreeBSD PTB.)

My next steps

1. Expose it so others can use it to inform their decision whether and how to engage with the project or to continue engaging with it.


2. Deal with the inevitable backlash and victim-blaming as well as I can when they happen. (That's one part I will likely need advice about from disability activists.)


3. Hope this starts a discussion between the FreeBSD powers that be and the disability community about how to properly respond to requests for accommodation under the ADA (since the foundation who's the project's legal persona is incorporated in the US), both as individual working group leaders and as members of official project governing bodies, take part in it as I can, and see what if anything comes out of it.


4. If no discussion on that happens or nothing useful come out of it, consider which further options I have and how to exercise them. (In that case, that's another part where I will need advice from disability activists.)

Comments

[gingicat]

I'm guessing that videoconferencing by Zoom with auto-transcription is a no-go because it doesn't conform to the free software contract?

[pauamma]

Is it transient transcription? If so, it would have the same major shortcoming as Google Meet:02:20 <PauAmma> Maybe, but I strongly doubt it. One of the reasons IRC works for me is that I have a permanent or semi-permanent record of others' words, with names conveniently attached to it, that I can refer to while composing my follow-up. Also, since I'm not a touch typist, I would miss anything said while I was typing.

[jenett]

I've been doing video calls for a project - paid Zoom account (though I don't think the paid matters for the caption/transcript part, just for how long the call can be.)

However, it may involve recording the meeting (I've only pulled transcripts for things I was also recording) and the person who was hosting/doing the recording would need to make it available to others. It does give timestamps for the captioning.

It also pulls a transcript of the chat, so if someone was, say, assigned to summarise in the chat, that would be available.

(My day job involves a combo of accessibility considerations, and my basic take is that a bunch of stuff is still shifting when it comes to transcripts and captioning, in terms of the landscape, so what's feasible right now might also look very different in 6 months.)

[pauamma]

*nod* Right now I'm in a "once burned, twice shy" mood about this, and not remotely willing to condone their we-know-better patronizing stance. But that's still useful to know, thanks.

2022-03-27: it just occurred to me that this may be an after-the-fact transcript, not an ongoing or running persistent transcript; if I'm correct, this isn't at all comparable to IRC and would likely not help me much or at all.

[jenett]

Captioning on Zoom, if turned on, is automatic but in the moment.

(It's also possible to assign someone to transcribe, if there's a paid captioner or translator: a couple of professional meetings I'm in do that. Also, it's possible to pin a sign language interpreter, just for reference.)

I use or am in meetings that use the automated captioning on Google Meet, Zoom, and Jitsi fairly regularly both for work meetings and with a friend who's got adult hearing loss and relies on lipreading: Google Meet's captions have been more wonky and not helpful recently, Zoom's are pretty solid (though glitch on unfamiliar nouns/names/etc. sometimes). Jitsi is also pretty solid, but not set up so well for larger meeting needs (that's the one I've only used for one on one personal chats).

I'm pretty sure (though it might depend on some settings) that for Zoom you could set it up to show the captions on the video window, or pop them out to read them separate from the video (you can also minimise the video output in various ways, and focus on the captions.)

If you record the meeting, the caption transcript is available afterwards as well (with time stamps) and replays when you replay the video file.

[pauamma]

Thanks. The lack of persistent running transcription makes all of the above essentially useless for me.

[cesy]

It's a pity they couldn't get their heads around the difference between captions that disappear before you can read them and a transcript that hangs around a little longer. Them finding a tool that gives an auto transcript from the auto captions shouldn't be that hard.

[pauamma]

Or around "maybe he really knows better what works or doesn't work for him and we should listen carefully".