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

Groups > linux.debian.project > #9790 > unrolled thread

Conflict escalation and discipline

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

Contents

  Conflict escalation and discipline Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-17 14:40 +0200
    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline "Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> - 2018-04-17 15:30 +0200
      Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-17 16:00 +0200
    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-04-17 20:00 +0200
      Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-04-17 20:20 +0200
        Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-04-17 22:30 +0200
          Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-18 14:00 +0200
            Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2018-04-18 15:10 +0200
              Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 15:50 +0200
                Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:40 +0200
              Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-18 17:00 +0200
                Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-04-18 17:00 +0200
                  Re: Conflict escalation and discipline, name Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2018-04-18 18:00 +0200
                Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2018-04-18 17:00 +0200
                  Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-18 18:20 +0200
                    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-04-18 18:30 +0200
                    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2018-04-18 18:30 +0200
                    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-04-18 21:30 +0200
                      Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2018-04-19 01:50 +0200
                        Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-04-19 17:10 +0200
                    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2018-04-19 10:50 +0200
                    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org> - 2018-04-20 03:50 +0200
                  Re: Conflict escalation and discipline gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2018-04-18 18:30 +0200
                Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-04-19 09:50 +0200
                  Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-04-19 12:10 +0200
              Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-04-18 18:10 +0200
                Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> - 2018-04-18 18:40 +0200
                Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-18 19:30 +0200
                  Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-04-18 21:50 +0200
                    Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-04-19 22:30 +0200
              Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-04-18 21:10 +0200
            Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org> - 2018-04-18 15:10 +0200
              Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-04-18 22:30 +0200
            Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-04-18 18:20 +0200
      Re: Conflict escalation and discipline "Chris Lamb " <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-04-17 20:20 +0200
        Re: Conflict escalation and discipline Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-18 13:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#9790 — Conflict escalation and discipline

We desperately need:

 * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling,
   that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1].

 * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that
   (i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is
   feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult
   people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able
   to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do
   things here.

[0] Doing this kind of thing in public is really poor.  d-devel is a
good place for escalation of a tricky technical problem.  It can also
work well for technical disagreement, if the participants still regard
each other as collaborators and remain friendly or, at least, polite.

[1] We must not pile this problem onto one person.

[2] That is, there should be a single set of decisionmakers who can
ultimate make disciplinary decisions[3] regardless of which communication
channel(s) and/or contributor status privileges are being (ab)used;
and regardless of whether the bad behaviour is said to be harassment
or rudeness or whatever.

[3] It would be OK if they made recommendations which DAM, TC, or
whoever, were expected to follow.

Ian.

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

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9791

On 2018-04-17 14:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We desperately need:
> 
>  * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling,
>    that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1].
> 
>  * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that
>    (i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is
>    feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult
>    people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able
>    to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do
>    things here.

+1!

-Jonathan

-- 
   ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
   ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
   ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
   ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  xmpp:jcc@debian.org ring:highvoltage

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

#9792

Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> On 2018-04-17 14:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We desperately need:
> > 
> >  * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling,
> >    that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1].
> > 
> >  * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that
> >    (i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is
> >    feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult
> >    people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able
> >    to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do
> >    things here.
> 
> +1!

I should say that I am volunteering, in the event that anyone
considers me suitable to be part of such a thing.

Ian.

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

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

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

#9793

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

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 01:39:07PM +0100]:
> We desperately need:

FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current
level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation.

>  * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling,
>    that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1].
> 
>  * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that
>    (i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is
>    feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult
>    people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able
>    to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do
>    things here.

Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially
cover the case. You mention in your footnotes a body that makes
recommendations that would be followed by DAM, TC or whoever.

It depends on the case at hand, but I'd say this is covered by the TC,
DAM, the anti-harassment team, the DPL (who is not burdened by this as
a single individual but as one of the potential points of contact),
specific teams that cover the different aspects of the project (say,
the ftpmasters, or the DebConf committee, or whatnot).

I believe the problem that sparked your message are the recent threads
(in d-devel, in d-private) that show conflict between Debian
contributors. However, part of the problem might be they are threads
started off... Mails. We could have said to any of those, "please
shut up here, solve your interaction issue by talking with ______" -
But the threads have already started. People would keep replying to
them even if mediation was "abducted" to a specialized group.

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

#9794

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

Chris Lamb  dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:12:26PM +0100]:
> > FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current
> > level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation.
> (...)
> This is made even more tragic in that I do not believe this is
> representative of what being a Debian Developer actually entails or
> requires.

FWIW, I agree with this. Said discussions are really nocive and far
from what we need.

> > > An effective, reliable and unified disciplinary mechanism
> [..]
> > Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially
> > cover the case.
> 
> I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making
> the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that
> could be part of the problem.

But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet
another contact point? 

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

#9796

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Chris Lamb  dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:12:26PM +0100]:
> > I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making
> > the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that
> > could be part of the problem.
> 
> But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet
> another contact point?

Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a
pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps
with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was
involved?]

Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the
existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if
escalation was required.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      https://www.donarmstrong.com

[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the
class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.
 -- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §21

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

#9798

Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet
> > another contact point?
> 
> Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a
> pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps
> with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was
> involved?]
> 
> Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the
> existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if
> escalation was required.

There are several things wrong with this suggestion IMO:

1. It depends on the DPL selecting a suitable delegate for each
   incoming enquiry.  At best, with a standing panel, this is makework
   and an opportunity for things to get dropped.  At worst it is
   another way for an escalation of bad behaviour to be blocked.

2. You are suggesting mediation.  Mediation is certainly *one* part of
   what is needed, but also *conciliation* and *arbitration*.
   Generally I am not a fan of mediation because it does not look at
   the rights and wrongs behind an issue; so it reinforces the
   existing power structures.

3. Complaintants should not be expected to repeatedly explain/justify
   their views to a succession of different
   teams/officeholders/whatever.

4. Your proposed people seem to lack real authority; and also public
   legitimacy.  The lack of authority/legitimacy is a problem because
   (i) awkard disputants will just say the appointee is wrong
   (ii) if escalation is required, see (3).

5. Each individual dispute should be dealt with by more than one
   person.  Because otherwise escalation to enforcement action will
   inevitably have to violate (3), since there are some serious steps
   which might be necessary for which a single person's recommendation
   would be clearly insufficient; and even for less serious steps,
   collective rather than individual judgement is probably better.

6. You mention `anti-harassment' as a `lever of power" but of course
   anti-harassment have no inherent authority.

IMO the antiharassment team's members would be a good starting point
for the members of my proposed new structure.  But the new structure
needs to relate entirely differently to our existing institutions.

I wonder if I should propose a GR.  That would provide a way of
testing whether my ideas (which do seem controversial) are more widely
held, and also if the GR passes, give clear legitimacy to the new
team.

Ian.

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

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

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

#9799

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

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
> issues.

Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".

This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
name for a team that deals with this.

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

#9801

On 4/18/18, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
>> issues.
>
> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
>
> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> name for a team that deals with this.


What about turning to a thesaurus? That's helped me A LOT along the
way in #Life. :)

Also, my memory is foggy so this next might not end up applicable, but
there was a catch phrase that was all over the business world in the
late 90s. My memory is that the concept was about understanding each
other and learning to interpret each individual's... I don't know...
point of view, I guess.

Whatever it was, it was so involved that we ended with two or three
inch thick notebooks full of things about it when it was over. The
thing about something like that is it does take the willingness of all
involved to make it work.

Again, I could really be remembering wrong, but the feeling left all
these years later was that it was all about bonding toward one goal in
spite of very obvious, understandable, acceptable differences.

So I tried an "employee bonding" search. That landed a few things that
may or may not be of interest relative to this topic. "Team building'
was another phrase that presented itself. Both appeared to be
something that might could be tweaked to apply to an international
group of volunteers living in a far more stressful World than we had
in the 90s.. :)

And my apologies if that topic has already long ago been addressed somehow.. :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

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

#9802

On 4/18/18, Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/18, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>>> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
>>> issues.
>>
>> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
>> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
>> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
>> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
>> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
>>
>> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
>> name for a team that deals with this.
>
>
> What about turning to a thesaurus? That's helped me A LOT along the
> way in #Life. :)

< yada-yada snipped for brevity >

>> So I tried an "employee bonding" search. That landed a few things that
> may or may not be of interest relative to this topic. "Team building'
> was another phrase that presented itself. Both appeared to be
> something that might could be tweaked to apply to an international
> group of volunteers living in a far more stressful World than we had
> in the 90s.. :)


Something else just occurred to me. Our ages play a part in how we
communicate, maybe particularly about how we are able to sympathize,
possibly even empathize with the feelings and opinions of others.

That came to mind because I was just reading something yesterday about
some very young programmers who were so capable that they caught the
eye of the government. :D

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

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

#9803

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> 
> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> name for a team that deals with this.

That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:

 all @debian.org
   trouble         too vague, also negative
   behaviour       seems somehow hostile, also vague
   conduct         seems somehow hostile, also vague
   appeals         too strongly advertises judicial function
   arbitration     too strongly advertises judicial function
   upset           can minimise and subjectify bad actions
   conflict        very negative
   resolution      too vague but at least positive
   reconciliation  not attractive to complaints who want action
   dispute[s]      maybe?

Ian.

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

#9804

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
>> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
>> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
>> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
>> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
>> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
>>
>> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
>> name for a team that deals with this.
>
>That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:
>
> all @debian.org
>   trouble         too vague, also negative
>   behaviour       seems somehow hostile, also vague
>   conduct         seems somehow hostile, also vague
>   appeals         too strongly advertises judicial function
>   arbitration     too strongly advertises judicial function
>   upset           can minimise and subjectify bad actions
>   conflict        very negative
>   resolution      too vague but at least positive
>   reconciliation  not attractive to complaints who want action
>   dispute[s]      maybe?

mediation?

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

#9806 — Re: Conflict escalation and discipline, name

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:56:41AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> >>Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> >>to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> >>happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> >>offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> >>any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> >>
> >>This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> >>name for a team that deals with this.
> >
> >That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:
> >
> >all @debian.org
> >  trouble         too vague, also negative
> >  behaviour       seems somehow hostile, also vague
> >  conduct         seems somehow hostile, also vague
> >  appeals         too strongly advertises judicial function
> >  arbitration     too strongly advertises judicial function
> >  upset           can minimise and subjectify bad actions
> >  conflict        very negative
> >  resolution      too vague but at least positive
> >  reconciliation  not attractive to complaints who want action
> >  dispute[s]      maybe?
> 
> mediation?
> 

elders       used by  tribes,  group of elder/older, because their exprience
counsel      as counselor Deanna Troi from Star Trek  Next Generation


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Leven en laten leven

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

#9805

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

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 15:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> > 
> > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> > name for a team that deals with this.
> 
> That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:

"Debian emotional support group", maybe.

But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
what the group is reponsible for.

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

#9808

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> "Debian emotional support group", maybe.

I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting.  At
the very least I need to be much clearer.

> But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
> what the group is reponsible for.

This group would:

 * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian
   contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person.

   Bad behaviour includes but is not limited to: harassment; exceeding
   any form of authority (eg, package hijack); persistent or severe
   rudeness; blocking others' work without reasonable justification
   and adequate communication.

 * Handle matters in private (except in very exceptional cases).

 * Where appropriate, facilitate, mediate and/or conciliate, in the
   hope that the problem can be resolved by better communication.

 * Where appropriate, make judgements about the behaviour of relevant
   parties, and express those judgements to the parties in the hope of
   influencing them.

 * Where appropriate, recommend action to: DAM, TC, listmaster, IRC
   operators, DPL.  Information about the situation would be provided
   by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper
   team would not be expected to make its own enquiries and would
   normally be expected to follow the recommendation.

 * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave, how to complain,
   and write down its own processes.

 * Resolution might include simply informal discussions and
   reconciliation.  It might involve formal apologies, usually private
   but perhaps public.  It might involve preventative measures
   (intended to limit the damage done); punative disciplinary measures
   (intended to deter); and exclusionary disciplinary measures
   (intended to remove a problem from the community or part of it).
   It might involve a formal transfer of one or more forms of
   authority held by some of the disputants.

 * The new group would have a foundational document which would
   explicitly give it authority to do all of the above.

 * All of the above is without prejudice to the continuing rights of
   listmaster and other forum operators to take action when they think
   it appropriate.

 * Where the dispute includes a technical question about the behaviour
   of software, the dispute team would firstly try to get people to be
   able to discuss it constructively.  If that failed to produce
   agreement, the disputes team would say who was the person whose
   decision it was.

   If the other side wish they may refer the technical question to the
   TC.  The behaviour of the participants during the TC conversdation
   would be monitored by the disputes group and if necessary the
   disputes group would be able to have the discussion suspended or
   some participant(s) blocked.

Ian.

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

#9811

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

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:17:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This group would:
>  * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave
[...]
>  * The new group would have a foundational document which would
>    explicitly give it authority to do all of the above.
 
this would be horrible. we are *diverse* project, from all kinds of
backgrounds. thought- or behaviour police is evil, or imperialistic at
best.

I know you meant this well.... the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

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

#9812

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

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 17:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > "Debian emotional support group", maybe.
> 
> I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting.  At
> the very least I need to be much clearer.

Insulting? *sigh*

> This group would:
> 
>  * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian
>    contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person.

You're seem to be talking about something entirely different than what I had in mind. You're also proposing something that I find patronising
and sorely lacking in oversight.
> 

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

#9817

Ian Jackson - 18.04.18, 18:17:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > "Debian emotional support group", maybe.
> 
> I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting.  At
> the very least I need to be much clearer.
> 
> > But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
> > what the group is reponsible for.
> 
> This group would:
> 
>  * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian
>    contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person.

general comment: Your suggestions go way beyond of what I think is 
appropriate.

>  * Resolution might include simply informal discussions and
>    reconciliation.  It might involve formal apologies, usually private
> but perhaps public.  It might involve preventative measures (intended
> to limit the damage done); punative disciplinary measures (intended
> to deter); and exclusionary disciplinary measures (intended to remove
> a problem from the community or part of it). It might involve a

Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem that 
possibly would have to be removed from the project?

If so I heavily disagree with that.

I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior of 
a person and the person him/herself. In discussions on mailing list as 
well as for any team that deals with mediation and emotional support 
(without the notion that emotional support for a person means something 
bad or negative about the person who receives the support).

> formal transfer of one or more forms of authority held by some of the
> disputants.
[…]
-- 
Martin

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

#9820

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem that 
> possibly would have to be removed from the project?
> 
> If so I heavily disagree with that.

It's an action the project has had to take a few times before, and it's
probably worthwhile for that sort of inevitably very stressful situation
to take advantage of the judgement of several experienced mediators (or
whatever term we end up with) to decide whether it's in fact the right
course of action.

Most of the time, of course, there are usually better answers.
Expulsion is no fun for anyone.  But in the past some members of the
project have turned out to be abusive in ways that were exceptionally
serious or persistent or both, and I'm sure it will happen again in the
future, and in such cases it's better to expel them than for everyone
else to suffer their behaviour.

I think I would prefer the final decision for that kind of thing to
remain where it is now, with DAM (though of course that's easy for me to
say from the outside), but since it's usually the most serious step in
an escalating sequence of behaviour, a team whose responsibility it is
to try to resolve and de-escalate conflict and who may well already have
been involved would surely have valuable input.

> I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior of 
> a person and the person him/herself.

This is indeed very true and important to keep in mind, but it doesn't
mean that the project or its members should have to tolerate abusive
behaviour indefinitely.

I mean, if your main point is that we should describe the behaviour as
the problem rather than the person, then that seems like a laudable
practice.  Just let's not kid ourselves that every situation can be
resolved without exclusionary measures.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

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

#9828

Colin Watson - 19.04.18, 01:42:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem
> > that possibly would have to be removed from the project?
> > 
> > If so I heavily disagree with that.
> 
> It's an action the project has had to take a few times before, and
> it's probably worthwhile for that sort of inevitably very stressful
> situation to take advantage of the judgement of several experienced
> mediators (or whatever term we end up with) to decide whether it's in
> fact the right course of action.

I agree that this can be the case.

Like in the countries we live in. There are behaviors that justify 
putting a person into prison at least temporarily to make it impossible 
for the person to do it again.

> > I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior
> > of a person and the person him/herself.
> 
> This is indeed very true and important to keep in mind, but it doesn't
> mean that the project or its members should have to tolerate abusive
> behaviour indefinitely.
> 
> I mean, if your main point is that we should describe the behaviour as
> the problem rather than the person, then that seems like a laudable
> practice.  Just let's not kid ourselves that every situation can be
> resolved without exclusionary measures.

Yes, that was my intention here.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web