Proposed constitution amendment: Add purpose clause opposing discrimination #1245

dpk commented 2026年04月22日 19:17:47 +02:00

This proposal arises out of the work on an incompatibility statement for association membership. It partially fulfils the request of the membership assembly last year to have an incompatibility resolution to vote on this year. It adds to Codeberg’s stated purpose to oppose discrimination and promote a diverse FOSS community.

Together with the existing § 5 (5) it enables members or membership candidates who undermine our support for a diverse FOSS community to be excluded from the association.

It names seven forms of discrimination that we specifically oppose. Supporting persons affected by discrimination on these axes is explicitly allowed for charitable associations by the German tax code (§52 (2) AO) as follows

• racial discrimination (item 10)
• gender identity (item 10)
• sexual orientation (item 10)
• religion and philosophical outlook (item 2)
• disability (item 10)
• age (item 4)

In addition, these are the categories of discrimination which are forbidden by the German constitution (Art. 3 GG). This addition to the association’s purpose should therefore pose no risk to our charitable status per se.

This proposal arises out of the work on an incompatibility statement for association membership. It partially fulfils the request of the membership assembly last year to have an incompatibility resolution to vote on this year. It adds to Codeberg’s stated purpose to oppose discrimination and promote a diverse FOSS community. Together with the existing § 5 (5) it enables members or membership candidates who undermine our support for a diverse FOSS community to be excluded from the association. It names seven forms of discrimination that we specifically oppose. Supporting persons affected by discrimination on these axes is explicitly allowed for charitable associations by the German tax code ([§52 (2) AO](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ao_1977/__52.html)) as follows - racial discrimination (item 10) - gender identity (item 10) - sexual orientation (item 10) - religion and philosophical outlook (item 2) - disability (item 10) - age (item 4) In addition, these are the categories of discrimination which are forbidden by the German constitution (Art. 3 GG). This addition to the association’s purpose should therefore pose no risk to our charitable status per se.

daniele commented 2026年04月27日 13:08:52 +02:00

I hope I’m not saying something irrelevant or that’s already implied, but I think it’s important in this context to also refer to the existing legislation (Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes - AGG - https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/ ), given that our association is also an employer (you know I'm biased towards this perspective) and that it seems to apply also in our case?

So possibly a (2b) as follows could be added? (Please do correct my German):

(2b) Der Verein orientiert sich hierbei insbesondere an den Wertungen des Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG) in seiner jeweils geltenden Fassung.

I hope I’m not saying something irrelevant or that’s already implied, but I think it’s important in this context to also refer to the existing legislation (Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes - AGG - https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/ ), given that our association is also an employer (you know I'm biased towards this perspective) and that [it seems to apply](https://www.brennecke-rechtsanwaelte.de/Auswirkungen-des-Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes-AGG-auf-Vereine_77855) also in our case? So possibly a (2b) as follows could be added? (Please do correct my German): ``` (2b) Der Verein orientiert sich hierbei insbesondere an den Wertungen des Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG) in seiner jeweils geltenden Fassung. ```

dpk commented 2026年05月10日 19:06:46 +02:00

@daniele We discussed this in the working group and the following points were raised:

• we have to follow the AGG anyway, because it’s the law
• in general it may be a bad idea to reference particular laws in texts
• in particular this could backfire if a change in the law (under a potential right wing government in Germany, for example) or a court ruling weakened the applicability of the AGG in a way that would affect our ability to guard against discrimination
• in that event, defining the categories ourselves would make the default position that we continue to do the morally right thing and not automatically bend to whatever politicians decide for us

@daniele We discussed this in the working group and the following points were raised: - we have to follow the AGG anyway, because it’s the law - in general it may be a bad idea to reference particular laws in texts - in particular this could backfire if a change in the law (under a potential right wing government in Germany, for example) or a court ruling weakened the applicability of the AGG in a way that would affect our ability to guard against discrimination - in that event, defining the categories ourselves would make the default position that we continue to do the morally right thing and not automatically bend to whatever politicians decide for us

daniele commented 2026年05月16日 12:08:20 +02:00

Thank you for the feedback @dpk , I must confess I don't fully understand the logic as the first bullet point "we have to follow the AGG anyway [..]" seems in contradiction with the last two points (which I would paraphrase/summarize as) "if the AGG changes in a way that disagrees with our bylaws, we stand by our bylaws".

(Also, in my experience referencing norms that are of higher hierarchy is fairly standard and considered good practice)

I understand the time is over and apologize for not replying sooner.

Thank you for the feedback @dpk , I must confess I don't fully understand the logic as the first bullet point "we have to follow the AGG anyway [..]" seems in contradiction with the last two points (which I would paraphrase/summarize as) "if the AGG changes in a way that disagrees with our bylaws, we stand by our bylaws". (Also, in my experience referencing norms that are of higher hierarchy is fairly standard and considered good practice) I understand the time is over and apologize for not replying sooner.

ashimokawa commented 2026年07月02日 08:16:10 +02:00

I know it is "too late", but honesty I was not aware that this changes the Vereinszweck (the purpose of the association), which is the most invasive thing you can do to an e.V., legally speaking

oppose discrimination in the form of racism and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, religion or philosophy, disability, or age within the entire free software community.

I fully support this part of the sentence being part of our bylaws. But I do not support it being a new purpose of Codeberg e.V..
It makes a difference where this is put into the bylaws, which does not really become immediately clear from looking at the diff, which might look fine a first sight, but does not really expose the huge implications for the association.

I know it is "too late", but honesty I was not aware that this changes the Vereinszweck (the purpose of the association), which is the most invasive thing you can do to an e.V., legally speaking > oppose discrimination in the form of racism and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, religion or philosophy, disability, or age within the entire free software community. I fully support this part of the sentence being part of our bylaws. But I do not support it being a new purpose of Codeberg e.V.. It makes a difference where this is put into the bylaws, which does not really become immediately clear from looking at the diff, which might look fine a first sight, but does not really expose the huge implications for the association.

hsza commented 2026年07月12日 12:19:58 +02:00

religion or philosophy

Beware this is very vague and broad. "philosophy" is really close to meaning "political views", and you want to discriminate based on political views so as to exclude bigots to maintain a safe space for actual marginalized groups. Religion is also often used to legitimize bigotries. Either can imply literally any set of values and is a choice every person makes for themselves rather than something inherent to them.
Including them as protected characteristics is well-intentioned but does not make a lot of sense and may actually end up being a shield for bad actors rather than against them.

> religion or philosophy Beware this is very vague and broad. "philosophy" is really close to meaning "political views", and you *want* to discriminate based on political views so as to exclude bigots to maintain a safe space for actual marginalized groups. Religion is also often used to legitimize bigotries. Either can imply literally any set of values and is a choice every person makes for themselves rather than something inherent to them. Including them as protected characteristics is well-intentioned but does not make a lot of sense and may actually end up being a shield for bad actors rather than against them.

This pull request doesn't have enough approvals yet. 0 of 1 approvals granted.

You are not authorized to merge this pull request.