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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#9822

On 15011 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:

>  * 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.

Recommend an action, but the gatekeeper is expected to follow will in
practice turn out to be a "they took the decision, the rest must
follow". Not good at all, it basically merges the power of all
gatekeepers into one team.

And from past experience in my roles, multiple times over, I tell you
that the pressure and feelings around the actual "final action" is
nothing good, nothing one wants to give others.

Especially if you take DAM and as such membership in our community of
Developers it gets highly emotional and draining.

So i think there needs to be different ways of going on, depending on
what action. A "don't post on mailing lists for a while", or "please
refrain from uploading package XY", even technically enforced, is way
different to "goodbye DD state, come back in 3 years and we see if you
behave better".

Let this new team make a summary of what the problem is, what they tried
(and maybe how they see it fail) and then invoke "the higher body", but
let that higher body decide on the action. For stuff like list bans or
upload bans that may well be just a "right, do it".

Obviously when that team goes to one of the gatekeepers it is expected
they tried all the usual "easy" actions of trying to solve the problems
at hand already, and the gatekeeper shouldnt redo all of those steps.

-- 
bye, Joerg

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

#9836

Well, this conversation that is very important and relevant for me,
reaches me in a bad moment. So expuse my slow replies, please.

On 18/04/18 17:17, 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.

I actually think that both your proposal, and the current a-h, serve a
role that can be described as emotional support, and there is nothing
insulting about that.

Emotional support is essential for a healthy community, sometimes just
having somebody to listen to your rant can help a lot towards solving
problems.

I am not saying that we are currently able to do this (no personpower!),
but I find it an important part of such an entity. For years I have been
parroting about the need to take care of Debian's most important assent:
its people. And I believe this is one very important way of doing so.

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

> This group would:

Except for a couple of things -and to the best of my knowledge- the
anti-harrassment team has been doing what you describe here, I will
comment below on the exceptions.

>    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.

Currently, the gatekeeper has the final say. I think that for DAM I
agree with Ganneff in that it makes sense it stays like this. Maybe you
could give more powers for less drastic actions, such as temporary bans
on certain media, etc.

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

We have a Code of conduct, which goes a long way towards this.

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

This would be a delegation, I understand.

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

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

#9810

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

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:55:03 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:

> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 15:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > > 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.

Ack. I think that's the main point.

It seems that we're having this discussion every second year,
roughly, which seems to indicate that we need "something". And it
seems to me that what we're struggling with is to define what this
"something" really is.

I found Ian's brainstorming about possible names in the previous
email quite instructive because the names and his comments on them
show the spectrum of possible "somethings" quite well:

Are we looking for a court which rules on violations of rules; a
counseling body for contributors who want to get advice in unpleasant
situations; a mediating/conflict management instituation for helping
multiple parties who have a controversy; etc.? IOW: Are we looking for
"judges", "psychologists", "social workers", etc.?

Or: As Lars said (and I extend, if I may): What should the
responsibilities, tasks, and powers of such a team be?

Ian explained his ideas ("disputes/conflict", "promote healing",
"disciplinary mechanism/decisions") in his thread starter. Maybe we
can go back there and try to find a common view before thinking about
existing insitutions, names for the new one, etc.


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Jerry Lee Lewis: Big Legged Woman

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

#9821

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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:

What about defuse@debian.org ?

You write to them when you are about to explode and need help to not
explode. Or need help because someone else is going to make you explode.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/

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

#9823

Dear fellow developers,

> > That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:
> 
> What about [..]

I would agree that the current name for the Anti-Harrassment team
is sub-optimal and that names & words are uniquely powerful tools
at our disposal.

I can think of many historical examples in Debian where they were,
alas, not given enough consideration at the time.

However, I can't help but feel that we are distracting ourselves
from the more important and initial questions of what the remit or
powers of this enhanced/supplemental team might be. 

Indeed, the very fact that such "name framing" is so powerful is
likely to handicap this very discussion (which started at [0]
AFAICT) in that it can put off people who feel — and I'm uncertain
how to phrase it here — "de-framed" or otherwise put-off from
contributing by a suggestion.

  [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/04/msg00024.html


Best wishes,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

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

#9807

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

Lars Wirzenius dijo [Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:08:24PM +0300]:
> 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.

This topic was brought up at the A-H BoF in Montreal. Everybody thinks
A-H's name is wrong for many reasons, but no better-suited name has
yet been suggested; in my view, A-H is far from being a team only to
deal with harassment (which would make it mostly, although not purely,
a sexism-prevention-oriented group), but should be able to work in
"hard" social interactions such as what sparked this set of threads.

But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people
involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to
debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever
prevent that friction.

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

#9813

El 18 de abril de 2018 17:59:38 CEST, Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> escribió:
>Lars Wirzenius dijo [Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:08:24PM +0300]:
>> 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.
>
>This topic was brought up at the A-H BoF in Montreal. Everybody thinks
>A-H's name is wrong for many reasons, but no better-suited name has
>yet been suggested; in my view, A-H is far from being a team only to
>deal with harassment (which would make it mostly, although not purely,
>a sexism-prevention-oriented group), but should be able to work in
>"hard" social interactions such as what sparked this set of threads.
>

If we want a body that can enforce certain rules, I would go to "social committee" (as its analogue "technical committee").

If we want a contact point that gives advice ans ensures that complains or a report arrives to the corresponding body (similar to now),  my name suggestion would be"Anti-harassment and Fair Treatment Contact Office".

I wouldn't drop the anti-harassment word because its negative load raises awareness and sends a clear message. I always understood harassment as not only sexual, but any (repeated) abuse in power relationships. If that's not the common understanding, we may need to add "anti-bullying".

>But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people
>involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to
>debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever
>prevent that friction.

+1
Or at least I would like that the conversation goes at a slower pace. To leave ourselves (all of us) time to think, calm down, listen and empathycise.

My 2 cents.

-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
Sent with K-9 mail

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

#9814

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people
> involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to
> debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever
> prevent that friction.

Indeed.  My point of view arises from considering what might induce
such people to try a different approach.

The answer is, carrot: advertising that the alternative route has a
possibility of delivering something like what an angry person actually
thinks they want - punishment for the wrongdoer.

And, of course, stick: if you post to d-devel anyway then your own
behaviour will be scrutinised by that some body, and will be
officially looked on unfavourably (rather than just get you dogpiled).

I'm going to let other people drive this conversation for a while.

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]

#9818

Ian Jackson - 18.04.18, 19:23:
> The answer is, carrot: advertising that the alternative route has a
> possibility of delivering something like what an angry person actually
> thinks they want - punishment for the wrongdoer.
> 
> And, of course, stick: if you post to d-devel anyway then your own
> behaviour will be scrutinised by that some body, and will be
> officially looked on unfavourably (rather than just get you dogpiled).

Whoa. I do not believe in any of that.

Public shaming and/or other forms of punishment is not going to help 
here. The other way around: One of the threads I think this discussion 
relates to is full with shaming and blaming each other… with the result 
of that clearly visible: at least one package maintainer orphaning 
packages and probably even leaving the project.

If there would be one clear rule, I´d say: Never ever attack a person. 
Harmlessness with each other goes a long, long way. 

Wrongdoing someone who probably did something that did not serve the 
project or another person, i.e. did something "wrong", just continues 
the hurting cycle. And even "wrong" or "right" is just an arbitrary 
judgment. Indeed think "I am right and the other is wrong" is a pattern 
that fuels threads like the one I think this discussion relates to. Its 
also a game that can be played till the end of time. Only exit: One 
party lets go of blaming the other party (as if there would be different 
parties to begin with but that is another story).

There is no wrongdoer, there are just human beings or… souls who play 
the game of human experience.

-- 
Martin

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

#9835

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

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:46:03PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> If there would be one clear rule, I´d say: Never ever attack a person. 
> Harmlessness with each other goes a long, long way. 
> 
> Wrongdoing someone who probably did something that did not serve the 
> project or another person, i.e. did something "wrong", just continues 
> the hurting cycle. And even "wrong" or "right" is just an arbitrary 
> judgment. Indeed think "I am right and the other is wrong" is a pattern 
> that fuels threads like the one I think this discussion relates to. Its 
> also a game that can be played till the end of time. Only exit: One 
> party lets go of blaming the other party (as if there would be different 
> parties to begin with but that is another story).
> 
> There is no wrongdoer, there are just human beings or… souls who play 
> the game of human experience.
 
Thanks for writing all of this, Martin. 

I very much agree, even though I too often fail/miss this myself. "Ever tried.
Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."


-- 
cheers,
	Holger, with apologies to those I failed to in my life...

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

#9816

Lars Wirzenius - 18.04.18, 15:08:
> 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.

I think what would be beneficial here is more along the lines of 
mediation.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

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

#9800

Hey, I have not been able to contribute properly to this thread so far,
for personal issues, but I would like to leave my 5¢.

On 18/04/18 12:49, Ian Jackson wrote:

> 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.

Since a few days ago, I am part of that team. I can say that I have been
thinking for a long while about a-h and its (lack of) powers, although I
still don't know what would be best for the future.

I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
issues. Currently, it can only give recommendations, but it is not void;
and I think it will be natural that the liaison with DAM, mailing list
operators, etc will only get stronger with time.

> 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.

Dunno if we are at the point where a GR would be useful yet.

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

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

#9819

Hi Tincho,

> Currently, it can only give recommendations, but it is not void

Mm, but just to be 100% clear, the team could naturally be granted
additional powers — we need not consider the status quo to be the
permanent state of affairs.

(It could also be renamed too but as you can see from elsewhere in
this thread, that is... problematic.)


Best wishes,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

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

#9809

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 2. You are suggesting mediation.  

Yes. It has been my experience that many of the occasional flareups in
Debian have at their root a failure of communication between one or more
parties which has been escalated instead of mediated.

> Mediation is certainly *one* part of what is needed, but also
> *conciliation* and *arbitration*.

I don't expect the adversarial process to resolve our occasional
breakdowns in communication. At most it will produce winners and losers.


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

It was said that life was cheap in Ankh-Morpork. This was, of course,
completely wrong. Life was often very expensive; you could get death
for free.
 -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p25

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

#9795

Hi Gunnar et al.,

> 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.

I'm reluctant to jump so quickly to a meta dicussion but I think we
underestimate the subtle effects of such discussions. In particular
how they subconsciously (and conciously) affect the mindset of *non*
combatants.

Imagine, for example, a relative newcomer to the Project being
linked to the threads in question. At the very best, it would
hardly encourage them to contribute more.

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.

> > 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.


Best wishes,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

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

#9797

Chris Lamb  writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> Hi Gunnar et al.,
> > [Ian:]
> > > 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.

Yes.

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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web