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

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13816 > unrolled thread

"Sanctity" of private emails (was Re: Can we calm the tone here (and other lists), please?)

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  "Sanctity" of private emails (was Re: Can we calm the tone here (and other lists), please?) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 18:30 +0200
    Re: "Sanctity" of private emails (was Re: Can we calm the tone here (and other lists), please?) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2025-05-21 19:20 +0200
    Re: "Sanctity" of private emails (was Re: Can we calm the tone here (and other lists), please?) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 23:20 +0200
      Re: "Sanctity" of private emails (was Re: Can we calm the tone here (and other lists), please?) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2025-05-22 09:40 +0200
        Re: "Sanctity" of private emails (was Re: Can we calm the tone here (and other lists), please?) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 04:50 +0200

#13816 — "Sanctity" of private emails (was Re: Can we calm the tone here (and other lists), please?)

Andrew M.A. Cater writes, in an official statement of the Community Team:
> Taking private communications and moving them onto public lists without
> consent is unacceptable at any time.

I would to clarify/contest this.  This rule, as stated, is very
broad, unqualified, and absolute.

If we take this at face value, in all of the following hyothetical
examples, a hypothetical Alice (a Debian Member) would be behaving
unacceptably according to the CT:

1. Alice emails her Member of Parliament about the UK Online Safety
   Act and its impact on online collaboration.  She approves very much
   of the reply, and publishes it on debian-project.

2. An employee of a tech giant sends Alice an unsolicited email
   inviting her to help sneak spyware into a package she maintains.
   She publishes the email, causing a massive public row.

3. Bob, a member of the Debian Technical Commitee, CC's Alice on an
   mail with technical information contradicting Bob's public
   position; Bob explains in the mail that he doesn't want to have to
   explain the details in public because it would undermine support
   for his preferred outcome.  Alice nevertheless posts the message
   publicly to the TC mailing list.

I could go on.

I think these examples demonstrate that any convention against posting
private emails cannot be absolute.  Rather, things are contextual.  It
depends on the power relationship, and on the role of each party in
the conversation, and there are many exceptions where publication is
fine - even, necessary.

In Debian we supposedly value transparency.  We should be making
decisions, and carrying out consultations, and exchanging technical
information, in public, unless there are very good reasons to do
otherwise.

Ian.

[1] Presumably, the exchange is one that's on-topic.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.  

Pronouns: they/he.  If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13817

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Andrew M.A. Cater writes, in an official statement of the Community Team:

>> Taking private communications and moving them onto public lists without
>> consent is unacceptable at any time.

> I would to clarify/contest this.  This rule, as stated, is very
> broad, unqualified, and absolute.

Yeah, I agree. This has been a rule of thumb for as long as I've been on
the Internet and I've always been uncomfortable with the absolute version.
I've also seen it abused from time to time for nearly as long as I've been
on the Internet. It's sometimes appropriate and even necessary to publish
private communications.

The reason why people cite this rule about not publishing private
communications, though, is that it's shorthand for a lot of principles
that I do agree with and that are tedious to spell out every time. It's
therefore a good *default*, as long as people don't take it as an absolute
that applies in every circumstance.

Just off the top of my head, here are a bunch of reasons for normally not
doing this:

1. Discussing things in public takes way more energy and is higher risk
   than discussing them in private, and sometimes people just aren't up to
   it. It's fine to disregard their opinion in this case if one feels
   strongly that the matter must be discussed in public, but dragging them
   into the public discussion against their will is a good way to alienate
   volunteers and drive them away from Debian.

2. Republishing messages in a different context inherently changes their
   meaning, and sometimes the meaning can change in ways that are
   deceptive. This can be done inadvertantly, even if the person who is
   republishing the message has no intention of doing this, because the
   person republishing is usually familiar with the other context and may
   not see how the message would read in isolation.

3. Changing someone's chosen venue of discussion from private to public is
   usually an escalation and is usually going to make people angry.
   Sometimes escalation is warranted, but it's always something to think
   twice about. All other things being equal, ideally we should not make
   each other angry while trying to solve problems!

4. Often the intention and hope with private communication is that the
   person you're corresponding with will point out where you're wrong or
   misguided and help you correct your thinking. If that communication is
   instead published publicly, it often feels like public mocking and
   shaming for things that you said in private in part because they
   weren't fully thought through. This, again, is a good way to alienate
   volunteers and drive them away from Debian.

5. Forcing someone's private position into a public forum will normally
   harden their position and make them far less willing to change it. This
   is a basic aspect of human psychology: The more publicly you have
   committed to a position, the harder it is to ever change it, because it
   becomes invested with your reputation and idenitty. It's therefore
   usually counterproductive to republish people's communications if you
   hope to be able to persuade them to your point of view.

There are others.

My personal rule of thumb is that I won't publish private communication
lightly, and usually (almost always) I end up deciding that the benefits
aren't worth the costs, but I do think it's sometimes appropriate.

The one thing I don't have any patience for is if I think someone is
intentionally abusing this rule to keep me from getting help or support.
If the private email is already that hostile, I am willing to forward it
to anyone and any forum I choose. This thankfully has never happened to me
in Debian, but I've had it happen occasionally in other circumstances.

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

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

#13818

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

[CC list trimmed]

At 2025-05-21T15:04:20+0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew M.A. Cater writes, in an official statement of the Community Team:
> > Taking private communications and moving them onto public lists
> > without consent is unacceptable at any time.
> 
> I would to clarify/contest this.  This rule, as stated, is very
> broad, unqualified, and absolute.

At 2025-05-21T10:02:44-0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > Andrew M.A. Cater writes, in an official statement of the Community Team:
> >> Taking private communications and moving them onto public lists
> >> without consent is unacceptable at any time.
> 
> > I would to clarify/contest this.  This rule, as stated, is very
> > broad, unqualified, and absolute.
> 
> Yeah, I agree. This has been a rule of thumb for as long as I've been
> on the Internet and I've always been uncomfortable with the absolute
> version.  I've also seen it abused from time to time for nearly as
> long as I've been on the Internet. It's sometimes appropriate and even
> necessary to publish private communications.

Seconded.

I have complained before about the poor quality of communications from
the Community Team.  I do so again to observe that the correlation
between that poor quality and the team's penchant for broad,
unqualified, absolute, overbearing, condescending, and paternalistic
transmissions and the prohibition of disclosure they unilaterally impose
on others with said communications is not a coincidence.

The Community Team as now constituted is corrosive to collegiality.

Regards,
Branden

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

#13819

"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:
> At 2025-05-21T10:02:44-0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Yeah, I agree. This has been a rule of thumb for as long as I've been
>> on the Internet and I've always been uncomfortable with the absolute
>> version. I've also seen it abused from time to time for nearly as long
>> as I've been on the Internet. It's sometimes appropriate and even
>> necessary to publish private communications.

> Seconded.

> I have complained before about the poor quality of communications from
> the Community Team.  I do so again to observe that the correlation
> between that poor quality and the team's penchant for broad,
> unqualified, absolute, overbearing, condescending, and paternalistic
> transmissions and the prohibition of disclosure they unilaterally impose
> on others with said communications is not a coincidence.

Since this was partly in response to something I said, I just want to note
that I personally didn't find the Community Team message to be
overbearing, condescending, or paternalistic. It's a common piece of
Internet advice that is often correct and this is very, very (very) far
from the first time that I've seen it, including in the Debian context.

The absolute version is a bit of a pet peeve of mine for Usenet reasons
unrelated to Debian, which is why I said something, but it's hardly an
unusual position.

> The Community Team as now constituted is corrosive to collegiality.

Speaking of broad, unqualified, and absolute. :)

I am happy to have someone occasionally post a public etiquette reminder
or tell me directly, "hey, I think you could have handled that better." I
don't promise to agree, but feedback is helpful. It's hard to calibrate
communication so that it's effective for the people listening if I don't
listen to them provide feedback on whether I succeeded!

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

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

#13821

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

Hi Russ,

At 2025-05-21T14:50:58-0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Since this was partly in response to something I said, I just want to
> note that I personally didn't find the Community Team message to be
> overbearing, condescending, or paternalistic. It's a common piece of
> Internet advice that is often correct and this is very, very (very)
> far from the first time that I've seen it, including in the Debian
> context.
> 
> The absolute version is a bit of a pet peeve of mine for Usenet
> reasons unrelated to Debian, which is why I said something, but it's
> hardly an unusual position.
[snip]

Just wanted to note that I don't find your message unworthy of comment,
but since I'm traveling for the next week or so I find myself without
time to craft a response with the sort of attention it merits.

Sufficient time has passed to note a further enduring, disquieting trait
of the Community Team's response to critique or disagreement from
esteemed Debian veterans[1]: no acknowledgement, no concession.

Regards,
Branden

[1] obviously _I_ don't qualify, but you and Ian are pretty cool guys

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web