Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12603 > unrolled thread

Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org> - 2022-02-20 19:30 +0100
    Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org> - 2022-02-20 19:50 +0100
    Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-20 21:20 +0100
      Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-20 22:00 +0100
        Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-20 22:40 +0100
          Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 00:10 +0100
      Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-20 23:50 +0100
        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 00:10 +0100
        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Sam Hartman <hartmans@suchdamage.org> - 2022-02-21 00:30 +0100
      Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-20 23:50 +0100
        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 04:20 +0100
          Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 05:00 +0100
          Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 06:20 +0100
            Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 06:40 +0100
              Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 07:10 +0100
                Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 07:50 +0100
                  Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 09:50 +0100
                    Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Marc Haber <mh+debian-project@zugschlus.de> - 2022-02-21 11:10 +0100
                      Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 19:00 +0100
                  Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-21 16:40 +0100
                    Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2022-02-21 17:30 +0100
                      Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-21 18:00 +0100
                        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-21 18:50 +0100
                          Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 19:10 +0100
                            Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-21 19:20 +0100
                              Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-22 00:20 +0100
                                Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-02-22 05:40 +0100
                            Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 19:30 +0100
                        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2022-02-21 18:50 +0100
                    Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 18:10 +0100
                      Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 18:20 +0100
                        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 18:50 +0100
                          Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 19:20 +0100
                            Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Marc Haber <mh+debian-project@zugschlus.de> - 2022-02-21 20:00 +0100
                            Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 22:20 +0100
                              Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 22:20 +0100
                      Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-21 19:00 +0100
                        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 19:20 +0100
            Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 13:20 +0100
              Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 13:50 +0100
                Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 14:50 +0100
                  Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 15:50 +0100
                    Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 17:10 +0100
            Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2022-02-23 10:10 +0100
              Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-23 12:20 +0100
                Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2022-02-23 13:50 +0100
        Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-02-21 06:10 +0100
          Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 21:50 +0100
    Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-02-21 19:10 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#12632 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Felix...

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 07:25:46AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen expressed
>> around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of thing, or it
>> starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a presumption of future bad
>> behavior.  [...] This bothers me a lot.  I think
>> this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
>> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite counterproductive
>> in attempting to just get someone to shift their behavior.
>
>Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
>because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?

This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow
misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.

Either you're playing this up willfully, or you have a genuine problem
understanding that *not* all such discussions are attacks targeting
you. Right now I can't tell which is more likely.

Please *stop* and think about what you're saying and doing here.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
The two hard things in computing:
 * naming things
 * cache invalidation
 * off-by-one errors                  -- Stig Sandbeck Mathisen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12633 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:29 AM Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
>
> This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
> effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow
> misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.

Thank you, but despite your condescending tone I retain the right to
interpret who expresses sympathy for me, and who does not.

In this discussion, Russ sought to minimize the effect of warnings.
That denied the effect it had on me. It was the opposite of
empathy—and by extension sympathy.

> Either you're playing this up willfully, or you have a genuine problem
> understanding that *not* all such discussions are attacks targeting
> you. Right now I can't tell which is more likely.

I do not appreciate your style here, either. In fact, I find you
excessively personal and intimidating. Please note that you have
occupied many roles in Debian, and continue to occupy a role [1] that
gives you disciplinary power over me.

> Please *stop* and think about what you're saying and doing here.

Thank you, but despite your insinuations of my incompetence, I am
qualified to express a mature and educated perspective.

I am 49-year old married man with a family. In school, had seven years
of Latin, two years of Ancient Greek, won a scholarship from the
German President Richard von Weizsäcker and graduated from Harvard
University. In addition to my business endeavors, I serve in my ninth
year in public service (as a library commissioner). I have lived in
five countries, including China and two years in what might be your
native Britain. Please afford me the same capacity that you grant to
yourself. Thanks!

Kind regards,
Felix Lechner

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Community

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12636 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> wrote:
>
> Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
> there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern in
> the way you participate in Debian interactions.
>
> Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?

This, too, is a projection.

I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12642 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> wrote:

>> Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
>> there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern
>> in the way you participate in Debian interactions.

>> Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?

> This, too, is a projection.

> I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.

I don't think that's what Enrico is talking about.  I think he's talking
about the way that you attacked me in response to a message in which I was
expressing support and sympathy for your position, based on a
misunderstanding of my message and what looked to me like an assumption of
bad faith.  This is also not the first time that you've done this to both
me and others, you have never apologized, and you seem to be intent on
continuing to do that with me and others at random intervals instead of
extending a presumption of good faith and trying to find a non-hostile
reading of other people's words.

My phrasing doubtless could have been better or clearer.  It always can
be.  But you can ask questions rather than making assumptions!

When you do this and then, a few messages later, talk about how you think
Debian should have a warm and inclusive culture of compromise, it's quite
frustrating and confusing.  If your goal is to create a warm and inclusive
culture, please start by not assuming other people are trying to attack
you.  Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
conflict where there was none.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12643 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:06 AM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
> conflict where there was none.

I think you are blowing it out of proportion. There is no conflict but
a diversity of opinion.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12653 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> wrote on 21/02/2022 at 19:10:08+0100:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:06 AM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
>> conflict where there was none.
>
> I think you are blowing it out of proportion. There is no conflict but
> a diversity of opinion.

Actually, you did blow it out of proportion by rephrasing what Russ said
initially and pretending he was telling that you were "very harmful to
the project […]". And from this blow out, two subthreads emerged.

And, as I already told too in other mail threads that you are quite
efficient at interpreting what people wrote to you the worst possible
way (sometimes with this kind of rephrasing), I can't say that I'm
surprised by this.

Whether it's intentional or not, I'm still wondering, although the
regular repetition of this pattern tends to make things become clearer.

Whether you intend or not to use all your education and abilities to try
breaking that pattern, it's of course your call.

Regards,

-- 
PEB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12654 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:59:21PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

[...]

> And, as I already told too in other mail threads that you are quite
> efficient at interpreting what people wrote to you the worst possible
> way [...]

> Whether it's intentional or not, I'm still wondering, although the
> regular repetition of this pattern tends to make things become clearer.

As a total bystander, I'd humbly suggest that we all strongly assume
it's not intentional. This is IMO the best strategy to de-escalate things

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12646 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Monday, February 21, 2022 1:05:04 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> wrote:
> >> Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
> >> there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern
> >> in the way you participate in Debian interactions.
> >> 
> >> Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?
> > 
> > This, too, is a projection.
> > 
> > I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.
> 
> I don't think that's what Enrico is talking about.  I think he's talking
> about the way that you attacked me in response to a message in which I was
> expressing support and sympathy for your position, based on a
> misunderstanding of my message and what looked to me like an assumption of
> bad faith.  This is also not the first time that you've done this to both
> me and others, you have never apologized, and you seem to be intent on
> continuing to do that with me and others at random intervals instead of
> extending a presumption of good faith and trying to find a non-hostile
> reading of other people's words.
> 
> My phrasing doubtless could have been better or clearer.  It always can
> be.  But you can ask questions rather than making assumptions!
> 
> When you do this and then, a few messages later, talk about how you think
> Debian should have a warm and inclusive culture of compromise, it's quite
> frustrating and confusing.  If your goal is to create a warm and inclusive
> culture, please start by not assuming other people are trying to attack
> you.  Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
> conflict where there was none.

Persons in authority demanding public self-shaming and self-criticism isn't 
precisely deescalatory.

I don't think asking someone who's been traumatized by something to act is if 
they were someone who had never experienced the trauma is fair.

If your goal is to run him out of the project, then you all should continue.  
If not, I'd suggest drop it because I don't think anyone is in a particularly 
constructive frame of mind on this point.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12637 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 08:51:51AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:29 AM Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
> > effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow
> > misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.
> 
> Thank you, but despite your condescending tone I retain the right to
> interpret who expresses sympathy for me, and who does not.

Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern in
the way you participate in Debian interactions.

Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12634 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:

>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen
>> expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of
>> thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>> presumption of future bad behavior.  [...] This bothers me a lot.  I
>> think this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
>> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite
>> counterproductive in attempting to just get someone to shift their
>> behavior.

> Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
> because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?

That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.

What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and
probably counterproductive.  In other words, I think your reactions were
understandable and are evidence that the warning system is not working the
way that I think that it should because it doesn't provide enough
psychological space for people to understand it as I think it should be
intended.

And to be clear I think this is a problem with the tools that we have
available and the process we're currently using, not with how people are
trying to use the imperfect tools that we have.

> Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
> It included this line:

>     If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with
>     other people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your
>     membership in the project.

> Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
> "fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
> of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
> presumption of future bad behavior."

Exactly.  This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing
warnings.  The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion.  I think we're starting
with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to
course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly
attacked, and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely
well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different
problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly
shamed.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12635 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On February 21, 2022 5:02:37 PM UTC, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>
>>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen
>>> expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of
>>> thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>>> presumption of future bad behavior.  [...] This bothers me a lot.  I
>>> think this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
>>> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite
>>> counterproductive in attempting to just get someone to shift their
>>> behavior.
>
>> Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
>> because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?
>
>That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.
>
>What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
>you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
>that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and
>probably counterproductive.  In other words, I think your reactions were
>understandable and are evidence that the warning system is not working the
>way that I think that it should because it doesn't provide enough
>psychological space for people to understand it as I think it should be
>intended.
>
>And to be clear I think this is a problem with the tools that we have
>available and the process we're currently using, not with how people are
>trying to use the imperfect tools that we have.
>
>> Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
>> It included this line:
>
>>     If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with
>>     other people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your
>>     membership in the project.
>
>> Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
>> "fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
>> of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>> presumption of future bad behavior."
>
>Exactly.  This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing
>warnings.  The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
>ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion.  I think we're starting
>with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to
>course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly
>attacked, and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely
>well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different
>problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly
>shamed.

The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it is a threat of expulsion.  The minimal possible solution to people feeling threatened would be to not threaten them.  That may not be enough, but that would be a first step.  Focusing on the feeling shifts the blame and buries the lede.

Scott K 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12638 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:

> The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it
> is a threat of expulsion.  The minimal possible solution to people
> feeling threatened would be to not threaten them.  That may not be
> enough, but that would be a first step.  Focusing on the feeling shifts
> the blame and buries the lede.

It's a balance, because if people would always course-correct without
being told they have to with someone with perceived authority, we would
not be having this discussion because it wouldn't be necessary.

I get the impression you think I'm hair-splitting, any communication from
DAM is inherently a threat, and we should just accept that.  I think it's
true that any formal communication from someone who can kick people out of
the project has some level of implied consequences, but I don't think it's
true that we can't fine-tune the implication.  I think it matters a lot
whether it's public or private, for example, and whether we explicitly
raise expulsion or not.

That said, it is entirely possible that I am being far too optimistic
about the number of people who are willing to ignore peer feedback but are
willing to substantially change their behavior when they get DAM feedback.
Maybe the people who are unwilling to accept feedback unless it comes from
someone in perceived authority are already too harmful to the project to
try to spend more time and energy on, and a direct warning of expulsion
*is* the right way to go about it.  I hope that isn't the case, but I
admit that it's very worrisome when people won't hear peer feedback and I
admit I personally don't want to spend a lot of time working with
aggressively confrontational and draining people in the hope that they'll
change.

Regardless, though, I really do not like that we've backed ourselves into
a corner that involves public shaming (even if it's not intended to be
that) as part of the process.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12645 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Monday, February 21, 2022 12:33:55 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
> > The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it
> > is a threat of expulsion.  The minimal possible solution to people
> > feeling threatened would be to not threaten them.  That may not be
> > enough, but that would be a first step.  Focusing on the feeling shifts
> > the blame and buries the lede.
> 
> It's a balance, because if people would always course-correct without
> being told they have to with someone with perceived authority, we would
> not be having this discussion because it wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> I get the impression you think I'm hair-splitting, any communication from
> DAM is inherently a threat, and we should just accept that.  I think it's
> true that any formal communication from someone who can kick people out of
> the project has some level of implied consequences, but I don't think it's
> true that we can't fine-tune the implication.  I think it matters a lot
> whether it's public or private, for example, and whether we explicitly
> raise expulsion or not.
> 
> That said, it is entirely possible that I am being far too optimistic
> about the number of people who are willing to ignore peer feedback but are
> willing to substantially change their behavior when they get DAM feedback.
> Maybe the people who are unwilling to accept feedback unless it comes from
> someone in perceived authority are already too harmful to the project to
> try to spend more time and energy on, and a direct warning of expulsion
> *is* the right way to go about it.  I hope that isn't the case, but I
> admit that it's very worrisome when people won't hear peer feedback and I
> admit I personally don't want to spend a lot of time working with
> aggressively confrontational and draining people in the hope that they'll
> change.
> 
> Regardless, though, I really do not like that we've backed ourselves into
> a corner that involves public shaming (even if it's not intended to be
> that) as part of the process.

I agree with the last point and I think your concerns are fair.

OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone losing their 
temper and calling someone an unfortunate name is like ringing a doorbell with 
a sledge hammer.  If that's now the standard for threatening removal, I think 
it's FAR to low.  This worries me more than it being too hard to make 
decisions.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12647 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 01:08:42PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone losing their 
> temper and calling someone an unfortunate name is like ringing a doorbell with 
> a sledge hammer.  If that's now the standard for threatening removal, I think 
> it's FAR to low.  This worries me more than it being too hard to make 
> decisions.

THIS. I fully agree with.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany    |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12650 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:

    Scott> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone
    Scott> losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name
    Scott> is like ringing a doorbell with a sledge hammer.

I strongly agree.  And I understand why it is that you (quite reasonably
given the information made available to project members) believe that
has happened.

As a project,a let's agree we're not going to do that, and let's figure
out how to build sufficient trust that we can believe in that agreement.

--Sam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12652 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Monday, February 21, 2022 4:09:37 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
>     Scott> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone
>     Scott> losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name
>     Scott> is like ringing a doorbell with a sledge hammer.
> 
> I strongly agree.  And I understand why it is that you (quite reasonably
> given the information made available to project members) believe that
> has happened.
> 
> As a project,a let's agree we're not going to do that, and let's figure
> out how to build sufficient trust that we can believe in that agreement.

Absent a GR, it's not up to the project.  It's up to DAM.

I don't know how anyone other than DAM can address the question.  If what's 
actually happening is different than what is told to the project members, 
that's not something I have any power to fix.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12639 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:06 AM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>
> That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.

Thank you for clarifying.

> What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
> you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
> that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and
> probably counterproductive.

Your statement is the opposite of what I felt. In fact, I asked for
the circumstances to be published on debian-private. It was calming to
me, so your interpretation is not correct.

Among the two hundred or so messages about my warning, there were at
least some people in the crowd who expressed empathy. By contrast, DAM
expressed no sympathy whatsoever.

The ensuing discussion on debian-private helped me to understand that
I had indeed tripped on a sensitive subject. I was especially
comforted by the first reaction to the announcement, which included a
reference to a TV series. To this day, I would personally not fault
anyone for calling someone a "freak" but I recognize that our
community's standards are different. I abide by them.

The discussion was anything but counterproductive. It exposed that
other people doing very similar things got off without a DAM warning.
No one ever explained that to me.

Most significantly, the discussion established that justice is a
social good and not the domain of a select few who act as they see
fit. Personally, I believe all disciplinary measures should be public.
Only then can the group truly reach a consensus as to which behavior
warrants punishment, and which does not.

> Exactly.  This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing
> warnings.  The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
> ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion.  I think we're starting
> with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to
> course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly
> attacked.

Just so you know, I felt publicly attacked by Enrico's message just
now. Please note that he presumably had a hand in issuing my warning.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that he might be bothered by an
examination of the same.

> and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely
> well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different
> problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly
> shamed.

Again, as I explained above, this is the exact opposite of how I felt.
A public examination of DAM's actions is the only way to ensure their
proportionality.

Finally to my original point, I believe that your conclusions
contradict mine so frequently because you overlaid your opinion onto
mine, i.e projected your perception onto mine.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12644 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:

> Your statement is the opposite of what I felt. In fact, I asked for the
> circumstances to be published on debian-private. It was calming to me,
> so your interpretation is not correct.

Thank you for the correction!  I'm sorry for having misunderstood you.
You'd made other statements about how you received that warning that I
have apparently misinterpreted.

> Finally to my original point, I believe that your conclusions contradict
> mine so frequently because you overlaid your opinion onto mine, i.e
> projected your perception onto mine.

It's certainly possible.  I find it very difficult to understand where
you're coming from, and the only way I have of understanding other people
is through empathy, so I do continue to try to map your reactions to a
model that I can understand in order to try to understand your point.

Regardless, my intent in this conversation is not to talk about your
warning specifically.  That was something you brought up in this
discussion, and I don't feel like this is the place to talk about it nor
is it something I want to dig into.  I'm trying to make a general point
about the impact of the current process, which I think still applies even
if it wasn't relevant in your specific case.

It sounds like you may disagree with my opinion about the process.  Great!
That's part of the discussion.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12624 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On 2022/02/21 07:06, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution.

I don't believe that's quite accurate, a DAM warning isn't necessarily 
meant as a final warning, it's a larger prod for an individual to course 
correct their behaviour.

If an individual chooses to continue being disrespectful to other people 
after general requests and then also from one or more formal warnings 
from DAM, then I have little sympathy for them if they are kicked out of 
the project after they continue with abusive behaviour.

The technical issues we take on in Debian is already challenging enough 
that the last thing we need to do is to enable abusive people to stick 
around and hijack our causes and continue to distract from the actual 
issues we collectively care about.

That doesn't mean that there isn't problems to fix, some people have 
expressed concern that concentration of power with DAM is too much, DAM 
themselves have expressed that they have too much responsibility and 
don't want it, and want to focus on account management itself rather 
than having to be responsible for community management in addition to that.

So we do need to discuss and figure out what our ideal community 
processes should look like and who should be responsible for things like 
warnings. Should it be from the community team? A newly formed team? I'm 
against it being a DPL responsibility and it should really be delegated 
to a team instead of just resting on one person.

> I 
> think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that went:
> 
> 1.  Verbal warning.
> 2.  Written warning.
> 3.  You're fired.

Perhaps that could be used as a starting point. A process needs to be 
fair, but it also needs to be efficient, and the action taken should be 
in line with the offense. If someone, for example, starts issuing death 
threats and starts physically hurting people, we would need to have a 
process available to take quick action.

Also, I do think that people can improve, and I like to think that I've 
improved in many ways even just as a human being since becoming involved 
with free software 20 years ago. I hope that our processes will also 
take that into account and have some leeway for people to grow and 
improve over time, but there is a hard line that gets crossed when 
transgressions get in the way of people doing their work and they feel 
unsafe participating in the community, and when that happens, swift 
action will continue to remain necessary.

-Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12625 — Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On February 21, 2022 11:33:07 AM UTC, Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> wrote:
>On 2022/02/21 07:06, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution.
>
>I don't believe that's quite accurate, a DAM warning isn't necessarily 
>meant as a final warning, it's a larger prod for an individual to course 
>correct their behaviour.
>
>If an individual chooses to continue being disrespectful to other people 
>after general requests and then also from one or more formal warnings 
>from DAM, then I have little sympathy for them if they are kicked out of 
>the project after they continue with abusive behaviour.
...

I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step.  I think we agree.  A DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or expulsion.  I don't have a problem with this.  What bothers me is trying to pretend it's something less that's not a big deal.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web