Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #10008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-04 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 15:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> - 2019-01-05 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-05 18:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-06 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2019-01-10 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2019-01-10 06:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 15:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 23:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthewv@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-12 00:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-11 18:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-04 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 07:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-06 23:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian <flackjacket5@tutanota.com> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-07 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 02:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 02:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 04:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-08 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 16:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 03:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 11:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at> - 2019-01-08 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 18:20 +0100
[OT] distributions without systemd (was: Re: Censorship in Debian) Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-08 20:00 +0100
Re: [OT] distributions without systemd Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 20:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-01-08 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-05 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-05 22:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-06 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-06 17:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org> - 2019-01-08 13:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2019-01-04 23:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 02:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 08:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-12-21 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 12:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2018-12-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-21 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 10:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2018-12-23 21:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net> - 2018-12-24 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-24 13:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-25 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 06:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-12-26 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 07:50 +0100
Re: Cyberbullying (was: Censorship) in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-29 00:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2018-12-26 15:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-26 16:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-27 03:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-27 14:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 08:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Censorship in Debian |
| Message-ID | <x7emB-2to-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi all, I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. I would encourage people to watch the video. At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian. Chilling. I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been censored. Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind. At that moment, being surrounded by experts on human rights and freedom of expression who may have far more experience than most of us in Debian, I did a quick survey. I couldn't find one person who supported the actions of the censors. Some of Norbert's blogs make people think, but they appear to be overwhelmingly motivated by legitimate issues and his recent blog thanking[6] Lars[7] appeared to end in an upbeat and sincere manner. Whether I agree with either of them or not, I'd like to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly thank both Lars and Norbert for their contributions as fellow Debian Developers and fellow bloggers. Norbert had also made political statements[8] concerning the way codes of conduct are used in our communities. People who speak up like this are frequent targets for political plots, protecting these people is imperative. Looking at Debian's code of conduct[9], there is no compelling violation of the code in Norbert's writing. Indeed, the only violation of the code of conduct may be the act of censorship itself: the very first point tells us "inevitably there will be people with whom you may disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that, but even so, remain respectful." Even without contemplating the code of conduct, censorship has a sinister effect on discussion. People notice when somebody disappears and they become hesitant to speak about problems, whether they are technical issues or social issues. I feel compelled to speak up but as I write this, I contemplate the risk that some people will try the same tactics as the Iranians, censoring me, threatening me or dragging my name through the mud. If they try that, they may give each other a pat on the back but they don't fool our community at large. Nonetheless, article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[10] clearly states that no institution should act in any way to destroy the rights enshrined in the UDHR. The definition of an "institution" there clearly applies to a group with the influence of Debian, it is not only for states and courts. Wake up, people. If we are repressing members of our own organization like this, we haven't got a hope in hell of achieving our mission[11] for society at large. The UN calls on us to "stand up 4 human rights" on this 70th anniversary of that declaration. You can do that now by standing up for Norbert. It takes minutes for anybody, Developer or not, to submit a merge request in Salsa[12] to uncomment his blog. You can also email the Debian Project Leader, leader@debian.org If you know people in other organizations concerned with human rights, discuss Norbert's case with them and get their opinion, just as I did. You can't pick and choose human rights, having some freedoms and not others, the declaration even implies this too. Anybody who tries to do that is on a very slippery slope indeed. In my role as a representative in another organization and in my extensive work with Debian, various people have approached me about incidents of censorship and overbearing efforts to control participation in the free software community. It is far more widespread than many people realize. It only happens because people fail to speak up. For example, an FSFE volunteer was censored at 34C3 after distributing leaflets questioning Google's funding to FSFE. There is increasing fear that "anti-harassment" efforts are being used as cover for political agendas, they are operating in a bubble and diverging significantly from what would be acceptable in any other organization or field of endeavour. They post big newsletters to debian-devel-announce boasting about their work but many people feel those reports reek of gloating and one-upmanship. On a technical level, we may want to consider whether Planet is fit for purpose: if we want to showcase best practice in creating a platform where freedom of expression can thrive and remain immune to abuses, should we simply make more efforts to migrate to a decentralized tool, eliminating the risk that any subgroup or faction within Debian will be able to carry on like that now or in future? As somebody more famous once said, "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It". I welcome responses to this topic whether you share my concerns or not but if nobody cares about this stuff, please tell me, so I can stop contributing to Debian and go elsewhere. Regards, Daniel 1. http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/forum-on-business-and-human-rights/watch/panel-on-safeguarding-human-rights-defenders-forum-on-business-and-human-rights-2018/5972123912001/?term= 2. https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/99662c1548fac57813e5288002e3c6eeccf25ec6 3. https://preining.info/ 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi 5. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/14/speculation-over-fate-of-missing-dutchman-linked-to-wikileaks 6. https://www.preining.info/blog/2018/11/on-lars-wirzenius-fun-and-debian/ 7. https://blog.liw.fi/posts/2018/11/18/retiring_from_debian/ 8. https://www.preining.info/blog/2018/09/sharp-did-it-again/ 9. https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct 10. http://standup4humanrights.org/en/article.html?article=30 11. https://www.debian.org/social_contract 12. https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config -- Debian Developer https://danielpocock.com
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x7ePD-2Sc-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10008 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:31:46PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote: > I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening > to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes > to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. > I would encourage people to watch the video. > > At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a > Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian. Chilling. [...] > Looking at Debian's code of conduct[9], there is no compelling violation > of the code in Norbert's writing. Indeed, the only violation of the > code of conduct may be the act of censorship itself: the very first > point tells us "inevitably there will be people with whom you may > disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that, but even so, > remain respectful." [...] > Even without contemplating the code of conduct, censorship has a > sinister effect on discussion. I agree with you wholeheartly. Censorship is at the root, or very close to the roots, of pretty much any violation of freedom I can think of. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Ivan was a worldly man: born in St. Petersburg, raised in ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Petrograd, lived most of his life in Leningrad, then returned ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ to the city of his birth to die.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x7ePD-2Sc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10008 |
Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> writes: > I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening > to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes > to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. > I would encourage people to watch the video. > At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a > Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian. Chilling. > I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel > discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been > censored. Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind. Entirely apart from the merits of the rest of your discussion of whether the project should republish this blog using project resources, this framing is appalling and blatantly dishonest. It intentionally conflates issues of government censorship and journalistic freedom that have cost people their lives with a dispute over whether Debian should *republish* content that has not been censored, restricted, or removed in any way, let alone been subject to threats of physical violence. I object in the strongest possible terms to this framing of your argument. You should be profoundly ashamed for choosing this path of malicious exaggeration phrased as an attack on the work of fellow developers. It was completely unbecoming of a Debian project member. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-21 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x7fLH-3qN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10010 |
On 20/12/18 22:14, Russ Allbery wrote: > Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> writes: > >> I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening >> to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes >> to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. >> I would encourage people to watch the video. >> At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a >> Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian. Chilling. >> I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel >> discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been >> censored. Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind. > Entirely apart from the merits of the rest of your discussion of whether > the project should republish this blog using project resources, this If people want to clarify the way Planet can be used, they can create a policy and maybe put it to a vote. Retrospectively sanctioning people without strong grounds based on policy is not right though. People may expect a newsletter or another official publication to be curated to some degree but I always had the impression that both Planet and packaging are at the discretion of the individual developers. Personally, I welcome the diversity of views there and if it is going to be curated now, I would volunteer to host an uncensored alternative to Planet for those with similar feelings. > framing is appalling and blatantly dishonest. It intentionally conflates > issues of government censorship and journalistic freedom that have cost > people their lives with a dispute over whether Debian should *republish* > content that has not been censored, restricted, or removed in any way, let > alone been subject to threats of physical violence. > > I object in the strongest possible terms to this framing of your argument. > You should be profoundly ashamed for choosing this path of malicious > exaggeration phrased as an attack on the work of fellow developers. It > was completely unbecoming of a Debian project member. > and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience and scientific research. Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former. Those people should be ashamed of themselves. Research confirms[1] this phenomenon. If people want to pursue an anti-harassment objective in good faith, then please start by realizing the existing team and their approach needs careful examination, they need to make it a priority to put at the front of their mind the welfare of every single person they come into contact with, even if they don't understand or can't related to that person's behaviour and they probably need to engage outside expertise both for the benefit of the community and their own state of mind. Regards, Daniel 1. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/roger-covin/cyber-bullying-suicide_b_3996518.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-21 00:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x7geK-3AC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10011 |
Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> writes: > and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience > and scientific research. You decided to distort a political issue that many of us feel strongly about to attack a policy around what to republish in project-owned forums, which is only on a continuum with that issue if you look for it with a telescope. You did this in a way designed to provoke strong feelings and create moral absolutes rather than start a conversation, and you did this knowing full well that you were attacking a specific team inside Debian composed, like all Debian teams, of overworked volunteer members. You did this without the slightest attempt to extend an assumption of good will or allow for the possibility there are further things going on that you don't know about, and you did so with such pathetically sloppy and incomplete research that even *I* know you are leaving out substantial background, and I haven't been trying to follow this saga. In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized human rights (!!). That you cannot understand how completely absurd this is means that it is futile to try to argue this point with you on the merits. There *is* an underlying project debate here that is a real debate, namely the rules for participation and republication in project forums. I think it's a debate we've had to the point of absurdity, but I'm not horribly surprised that people want to still have it, and if that had been all your message had been, I would have sit on my hands and not added to the noise. But you saw an opportunity to artificially strengthen your debate stance by comparing the Debian anti-harassment team to assassins (!!) and you seem completely oblivious to why this is utterly unacceptable in collective discussion within a project of colleagues, peers, and friends. I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet Debian. When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really meant that. But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project. If you want to have a debate about the decision of a team in Debian, you have an obligation to the project to conduct that debate with a certain basic level of mutual respect. Asking you to not compare your fellow project members to assassins does not seem like a high bar! If you aren't going to do that, I for one am quite happy to make this argument about *your* behavior, which was appalling and utterly toxic to supporting the community of a volunteer collective project. > Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way > across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening > messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the > physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former. Those > people should be ashamed of themselves. Yeah, no shit. Your lack of awareness that *you* are that person who should be ashamed of yourself because that's what *you* just did is honestly mind-blowing. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-21 01:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x7gRr-41X-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10012 |
On 20/12/18 23:46, Russ Allbery wrote: > Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> writes: > >> and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience >> and scientific research. > You decided to distort a political issue that many of us feel strongly > about to attack a policy around what to republish in project-owned forums, > which is only on a continuum with that issue if you look for it with a > telescope. You did this in a way designed to provoke strong feelings and > create moral absolutes rather than start a conversation, and you did this > knowing full well that you were attacking a specific team inside Debian > composed, like all Debian teams, of overworked volunteer members. You did Please don't misrepresent me like that. I am not calling on anybody to attack any team, I'm calling on people to be assertive in defending Norbert and other individuals who have been singled out. > this without the slightest attempt to extend an assumption of good will or > allow for the possibility there are further things going on that you don't > know about, and you did so with such pathetically sloppy and incomplete The fact that people don't know about certain things going on suggests the project leadership is deviating from the social contract. Let's get the policy about Planet in the open or choose to have two Planets, e.g. "planet-curated.debian.org" and "planet-uncensored.debian.org" and each person can choose which one they want to read. > research that even *I* know you are leaving out substantial background, > and I haven't been trying to follow this saga. > > In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you > could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian > developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized > human rights (!!). Other people have chosen to turn up the temperature. I felt my post was both restrained and lukewarm in comparison. I can see that this has been both shocking and surprising to some people and I sincerely regret that. I would ask you to consider it from my point of view and from some of the abusive communications I have received recently, they are the things that have established my frame or reference right now. > > That you cannot understand how completely absurd this is means that it is > futile to try to argue this point with you on the merits. > > There *is* an underlying project debate here that is a real debate, namely > the rules for participation and republication in project forums. I think > it's a debate we've had to the point of absurdity, but I'm not horribly > surprised that people want to still have it, and if that had been all your > message had been, I would have sit on my hands and not added to the noise. > > But you saw an opportunity to artificially strengthen your debate stance > by comparing the Debian anti-harassment team to assassins (!!) and you > seem completely oblivious to why this is utterly unacceptable in > collective discussion within a project of colleagues, peers, and friends. Without going into detail, the actions of certain figures over the last 3 months are in no way comparable to those of colleagues, peers or friends. The people who initiated those communications have set the tone for this debate through their arrogance, impatience and ego, not me. > I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet > Debian. When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really > meant that. But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach > to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project. ditto for the messages certain people have sent to me and other volunteers. Given my own personal circumstances this year, "deeply hurtful" is very much an understatement when assessing certain communications I received, especially considering their timing. > If you want to have a debate about the decision of a team in Debian, you > have an obligation to the project to conduct that debate with a certain > basic level of mutual respect. Asking you to not compare your fellow > project members to assassins does not seem like a high bar! If you aren't The bar has been taken even lower than you think and I am not the one who put it there. It is in our social contract that we do not hide our problems but I would ask people to forgive me for not laying out the sheer brutality of it in all it's gory detail right now. Doing so would compromise the privacy of multiple people outside the project. > going to do that, I for one am quite happy to make this argument about > *your* behavior, which was appalling and utterly toxic to supporting the > community of a volunteer collective project. Please don't make this personal. Notice I didn't choose to name people individually. >> Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way >> across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening >> messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the >> physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former. Those >> people should be ashamed of themselves. > Yeah, no shit. Your lack of awareness that *you* are that person who > should be ashamed of yourself because that's what *you* just did is > honestly mind-blowing. > My message was to repudiate censorship and support Norbert, a call for people to stand up is not the same as a call for people to abuse and threaten any team in Debian. I sincerely hope that people are assertive about the facts and principles and not abusive in their responses. As I said, my frame of reference right now has been largely established by the communications I received from other people. Regards, Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x7haN-482-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10012 |
I concur with Russ in the strongest of terms. I, too have no idea why a blog was removed, but I think we absolutely can and should if the post crosses lines. We, as a group of individuals working on a project together with shared resources working to maintain a constructive atmosphere must never be conflated with a Government censoring speech. We are not a Government. Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy community with Government censorship, and conflating a blog being removed from project resources with the killing of a journalist. It cheapens the death of those who are killed by repressive regimes fighting for their freedoms. Paul On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 6:46 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > > Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> writes: > > > and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience > > and scientific research. > > You decided to distort a political issue that many of us feel strongly > about to attack a policy around what to republish in project-owned forums, > which is only on a continuum with that issue if you look for it with a > telescope. You did this in a way designed to provoke strong feelings and > create moral absolutes rather than start a conversation, and you did this > knowing full well that you were attacking a specific team inside Debian > composed, like all Debian teams, of overworked volunteer members. You did > this without the slightest attempt to extend an assumption of good will or > allow for the possibility there are further things going on that you don't > know about, and you did so with such pathetically sloppy and incomplete > research that even *I* know you are leaving out substantial background, > and I haven't been trying to follow this saga. > > In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you > could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian > developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized > human rights (!!). > > That you cannot understand how completely absurd this is means that it is > futile to try to argue this point with you on the merits. > > There *is* an underlying project debate here that is a real debate, namely > the rules for participation and republication in project forums. I think > it's a debate we've had to the point of absurdity, but I'm not horribly > surprised that people want to still have it, and if that had been all your > message had been, I would have sit on my hands and not added to the noise. > > But you saw an opportunity to artificially strengthen your debate stance > by comparing the Debian anti-harassment team to assassins (!!) and you > seem completely oblivious to why this is utterly unacceptable in > collective discussion within a project of colleagues, peers, and friends. > > I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet > Debian. When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really > meant that. But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach > to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project. > > If you want to have a debate about the decision of a team in Debian, you > have an obligation to the project to conduct that debate with a certain > basic level of mutual respect. Asking you to not compare your fellow > project members to assassins does not seem like a high bar! If you aren't > going to do that, I for one am quite happy to make this argument about > *your* behavior, which was appalling and utterly toxic to supporting the > community of a volunteer collective project. > > > Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way > > across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening > > messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the > > physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former. Those > > people should be ashamed of themselves. > > Yeah, no shit. Your lack of awareness that *you* are that person who > should be ashamed of yourself because that's what *you* just did is > honestly mind-blowing. > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > -- :wq
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcxRD-PH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10014 |
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: >On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: >> We are not a Government. > >We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most >certainly have. > >We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has >Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our interests; we >delegate powers; we subject ourselves to powers, etc. Only for very limited areas. Debian does not have the power to tell us how to live outside of our collaboration with Debian. It's a very limited organisation. The worst censure that can be applied is to be removed from that organisation. That does not compare to the possible removal of liberty (or even life!) that is amongst a Government's powers. >> Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy community >> with Government censorship, > >This action was not performed by the community, but by an Official >acting Debian's behalf. Consequently, it _was_ government censorship. Rubbish. A refusal by Debian to publish on somebody's behalf is not at all the same as government censorship. A government can remove the right to publish at all. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcyaZ-Wp-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10117 |
On Friday, January 04, 2019 01:34:41 PM Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > >On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > >> We are not a Government. > > > >We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most > >certainly have. > > > >We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has > >Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our interests; we > >delegate powers; we subject ourselves to powers, etc. > > Only for very limited areas. Debian does not have the power to tell us > how to live outside of our collaboration with Debian. It's a very > limited organisation. The worst censure that can be applied is to be > removed from that organisation. That does not compare to the possible > removal of liberty (or even life!) that is amongst a Government's > powers. > > >> Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy community > >> with Government censorship, > > > >This action was not performed by the community, but by an Official > >acting Debian's behalf. Consequently, it _was_ government censorship. > > Rubbish. A refusal by Debian to publish on somebody's behalf is not at > all the same as government censorship. A government can remove the > right to publish at all. If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian? Perhaps if we can get past "it's not censorship" and say what it is, then we can make some progress. Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that is). I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about disproportionate reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so (I'm also not arguing that did or didn't happen in any recent situation - I am trying to see if there is some consensus to be found on at least how to talk about it). Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcCeB-3ym-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10118 |
Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public > due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian? Being an adult. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcCxY-3EP-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10127 |
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
>
> > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> > due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?
>
> Being an adult.
>
Russ,
That was uncalled for and inconsistent with the high bar you have set
for yourself in so many other discussions.
The word Scott is trying to find is most likely 'boycott':
Boycott \Boy"cott\, n.
The process, fact, or pressure of boycotting; a combining to
withhold or prevent dealing or social intercourse with a
tradesman, employer, etc.; social and business interdiction
for the purpose of coercion.
[1913 Webster]
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcCHE-3Ir-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10128 |
Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: >>> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's >>> the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public >>> due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian? >> Being an adult. > That was uncalled for and inconsistent with the high bar you have set > for yourself in so many other discussions. How was it uncalled for? It says exactly what I meant. I'm not saying anything at all about Scott's behavior; it's the very simple answer to his question. I apologize for apparently giving you the impression that it was an attack on Scott. I probably should have unpacked it a lot more. But having to mediate your behavior to follow standards that you may not agree with or face consequences around what organizations will have you as a member is *exactly* being an adult. This is how the world works. You have to watch what you say at work, or you might be fired. You have to be careful of what you say among groups, or that group may eject you. You have to follow the standards of an organization of which you're a member, or that organization will expel you. This is just ordinary, perfectly normal adult behavior. Everyone watches their behavior and their wording all the time. The idea that there is any forum in which people interact as adults where there is no chilling effect on one's unfettered speech and where no one has to watch their language, tone, or presentation is pure fantasy nonsense. Even 4chan has social norms and consequences for going against them. People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the world is doing this all the time. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcDaF-47B-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10130 |
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> writes: > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > > >>> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's > >>> the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public > >>> due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian? > > >> Being an adult. > > > That was uncalled for and inconsistent with the high bar you have set > > for yourself in so many other discussions. > > How was it uncalled for? It says exactly what I meant. I'm not saying > anything at all about Scott's behavior; it's the very simple answer to his > question. > > I apologize for apparently giving you the impression that it was an attack > on Scott. I probably should have unpacked it a lot more. But having to > mediate your behavior to follow standards that you may not agree with or > face consequences around what organizations will have you as a member is > *exactly* being an adult. This is how the world works. > > You have to watch what you say at work, or you might be fired. You have > to be careful of what you say among groups, or that group may eject you. > You have to follow the standards of an organization of which you're a > member, or that organization will expel you. > > This is just ordinary, perfectly normal adult behavior. Everyone watches > their behavior and their wording all the time. > This explanation puts your earlier comment in a differnet light. Thank you for elaborating. > The idea that there is any forum in which people interact as adults where > there is no chilling effect on one's unfettered speech and where no one > has to watch their language, tone, or presentation is pure fantasy > nonsense. Even 4chan has social norms and consequences for going against > them. > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the > world is doing this all the time. > I think that perhaps the source of Scott's concern (and to an extent my own) is that it is not necessarily obvious where the boundary is when it comes to Debian. The uncertainty here is the problem. I deal with it by trying to remain well away from the boundary. However, I can see how some who view Debian as a forum for social interaction in addition to technical interaction are rightly concerned. Russel Stuart's earlier message on "Expulsions Policy" got me thinking that it would be enormously helpful if there were a way to codify a community standard the way that we have codified package policies. At least that would be more clear and less ambiguous than what we have now, in the same way that writing down package policies does for the quality of packages in the archive. Sadly, I don't think that is in the realm of the possible. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcDX4-4Dd-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10132 |
Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> writes: > I think that perhaps the source of Scott's concern (and to an extent my > own) is that it is not necessarily obvious where the boundary is when it > comes to Debian. The uncertainty here is the problem. I deal with it > by trying to remain well away from the boundary. However, I can see how > some who view Debian as a forum for social interaction in addition to > technical interaction are rightly concerned. I completely agree that it's uncertain. I don't think this is only in Debian; I think it's uncertain in society as a whole right now. We're going through a particularly tumultuous period in politics in many of the countries from which Debian contributors come, and there's a ton of heated political statements and hard feelings and fear-based attempts to rally various political forces, and it's all very uncomfortable and upsetting. None of us can avoid being affected by that discomfort and upsetness. Standards are indeed shifting. This happens all the time in human society, and it's part of the discomfort of getting older. I have had older relatives who used various racial slurs without even thinking about it, which would be totally unacceptable today. I suspect that towards the end of their lives they were pretty irritated about having to change the way that they always talked in order to avoid facing social consequences. The uncertainty is real, and it's upsetting, and I think we should all be conscious of that. But, well, I'm pretty dubious that we're going to be able to completely remove the uncertainty, because human society is complicated and there's some baseline level of uncertainty. This is *particularly* true in an international project where we're coming from far, far different social backgrounds and dealing with different local issues. Part of the difficulty, but also the joy, of being part of a project like this is that we all get a crash course in cultural sensitivity and become much better at understanding the perspectives of people from far different cultures, and finding ways to work with them (sometimes haltingly). It's a very valuable life skill, and it can be really exciting when one pulls it off successfully, but it's real work! It's hard! It's worth admitting to ourselves that it's hard. And some of us are reaching farther and doing more work than others. For example, I'm from the United States, which for better or worse has a tendency to get its culture and politics all over everyone else to an extent that a lot of people are vaguely aware of US cultural conventions because they're ubiquitous. To take an obvious example already raised, we're having this whole discussion in my native language. That's a huge, huge advantage for me! And, to take another example, the only reason why I'm not utterly oblivious about, say, political tensions between Greece and Turkey is because I happen to have some friends who pulled me aside and educated me before I made a fool of myself. Because I have the privilege of assuming that people will follow my cultural conventions most of the time, I don't *have* to learn things like that to be successful. That doesn't make me a bad person (or a good person); it just makes me lucky in that particular way. I personally believe pretty strongly that, as a matter of fairness, we should distribute the work more evenly. Therefore, I try to go learn things that I don't really *need* to learn, so that I can try to meet people closer to halfway. I've been lucky enough in life that it's never going to be halfway, but I can at least get a bit closer. That's where I'm coming from in this. The uncertainty is real, and I get why people find it upsetting. I totally understand why it feels like a strain, and not particularly fun when people just want to write code. But I also think it's the price of being an international community, and *someone* is going to have to pay that price, and to the extent that people like me don't do our part of the heavy lifting, that price falls on other people very disproportionately, and to me that's unfair. We should be gracious with each other, and understand that we're not all international diplomats, and that we're going to make mistakes and barge into each other's political conflicts and be that person who says something horribly offensive. And we apologize and forgive and move on as best we can and keep this whole amazing project going. But it *is* work, and yes, we're asking everyone to do work, and yes, that's a real burden. I don't think that's really avoidable; it's just a question of how we distribute the work. My general philosophy on this is that insofar as I have the energy, I should step up and do my part of the work. And when I don't have the energy, I don't have to do the work, but maybe I should also consider staying a bit more quiet. I don't have to; I can just speak my mind anyway, but when I do, there's a higher than normal chance I might need to apologize afterwards. And that's okay! It's okay to decide you're not going to try to be diplomatic and are going to risk it, and sometimes that's okay, and sometimes you're going to have to say later "whoops, that wasn't wise, I'm sorry." As long as the apology is there, and is sincere, I think it will all work out in the end. There's a lot of good will in this project; people are not particularly eager to believe the worst of other people. But if one starts taking the position of never apologizing for anything because demanding apologies is unfair and it's not their responsibility to assuage easily-offended people.... whooboy. That's not going to go anywhere good. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdfzj-2iN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10135 |
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 12:04:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > maybe I should also consider > staying a bit more quiet. I don't have to; I can just speak my mind > anyway, but when I do, there's a higher than normal chance I might need to > apologize afterwards. Well, maybe not in your case ;-) Thanks for putting it so eloquently again, Russ. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 05:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcLhT-ql-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10130 |
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the > world is doing this all the time. There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". I think it's probably news to a lot of people that Debian isn't that sort of a situation today. (IMO, one of the problems with planet aggregators is it changes your personal blog from being a place where you can say whatever you want and have it only affect yourself, to a place where you have to watch what you say because it's automatically pushed to strangers who are only interested in very particular parts of who you are) Cheers, aj
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcLrz-Iz-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10150 |
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> writes: > There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying > before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", > or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". > I think it's probably news to a lot of people that Debian isn't that > sort of a situation today. But of *course* we're not! The project is more than 1,000 people! There's no way that is a situation where we're all among friends and can completely let our guard down and say whatever we think without any filters. What you're talking about is trust, and we can certainly try to build trust within the project, and part of that is giving other people the benefit of the doubt, assuming good will, and so forth. To the extent that we can achieve that uniformly across everyone in the project, that's great. But a project with a couple dozen people can reach a much higher level of trust than a project of over a thousand people. As the scale gets larger, the level of baseline trust we can establish is necessarily going to be lower. Trust is complicated and involves a lot of factors. It's not just the assumption of good will, it's also the chances that someone else agrees with you politically, has the same motives that you do, cares about the same goals that you do, and so forth. Even things like sharing a native language or an economic background or a national origin help build trust. When the project gets larger, some of those parts of trust will lessen necessarily because we have a wider variety of members. It's sad in a way, but it's inherent in size. 1,000 people is a *lot* of people. (Obviously, there's a smaller core of people who participate in discussions like this, but it's still a *lot* of people.) I'm afraid Debian as a project is not in "small gathering with your close friends" territory. It's in "small town" territory. The good news is that this means we have way more people doing way more interesting work, and way more cultures and thus more interesting things to learn. The bad news is that, yes, the level of baseline trust is a bit lower, which means that we have to be more polite and more thoughtful and more, well, "civilized" in the old definition of "the way people behave in cities." > (IMO, one of the problems with planet aggregators is it changes your > personal blog from being a place where you can say whatever you want and > have it only affect yourself, to a place where you have to watch what > you say because it's automatically pushed to strangers who are only > interested in very particular parts of who you are) Yup. And if you don't want that effect, well, don't aggregate your blog. It's okay to not aggregate your blog! -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcXM5-8cS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10150 |
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the
> > world is doing this all the time.
>
> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".
>
> I think it's probably news to a lot of people that Debian isn't that
> sort of a situation today.
Yes. I think you have put your finger on it.
For a significant minority of Debian's contributors - including me -
Debian definitely used to be a place where we didn't have to think
about what we were saying.
The effects of that unbridled expression on other (potential) members
of the community was not something we thought about much. But, at
least speaking for myself:
I have been hearing from a lot of people whose participation I care
about - often, people who already have lots of shit to deal with in
wider society. Those people are saying that it would really help them
to have spaces like Debian have a nicer atmosphere, so that there is
less risk of being harshly criticised and where having a thick skin,
and plenty of emotional resilience, is not so necessary.
So I have been (haltingly) trying to improve my own behaviour. Yes,
that's work. Being pleasant to people whose ideas I consider
seriously wrong does not come naturally to me. Sometimes, I fail.
But now that I and others in Debian are making this effort, I can see
the benefits - on both small and large scale.
But it's not enough for just those of us who have been convinced of
the value of this change, to try to make that change personally and to
help each other.
Unfortunately in a community of thousands there will inevitably be
some people who will continue to do what is harmful, but easy and
convenient and fun for themselves, and who will - at least initially
- reject suggestions that they too may need to think hard about how
their behaviour affects others people (and particular, how it affects
people who are not like themselves).
It is indeed natural for people to resent it, when previously they
could do what they liked, but now they are being being asked to
think about and moderate what they say and do,
So without some kind of consequences, unfortunate behaviour will
continue. It is in fact very natural human behaviour to push
boundaries like that. Even very agreeable people will sometimes
misbehave to the point of being mildly told off.
Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as
much as they can get away with. They will turn the dispute about
their personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to
increase the cost of enforcing the rules against them. And if that
fails they will do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further
punishment.
Maybe even such a person could provide a net positive contribution,
but only by the community maintaining a constant threat of punishment.
(At least for many years, until perhaps their personal growth changes
the situation.) That is exhausting for the moderators who are
responsible for policing the offender.
Particularly, patterns of lying, selective compliance, and so on, make
that job very hard, especially if the moderators are subject to
oversight by a body of largely naive and detached people who are
unfamiliar with how toxic people operate generally, and who cannot
fully and properly analyse every reported incident.
Perhaps it is better for the world as a whole for such a person to be
given the very serious shock of being permanently ejected. That will
teach them that trying to constantly play the exact line (of getting
away with things) does carry a serious risk of serious consequence.
Maybe the next community they get involved with will find them a more
positive influence, and easier to deal with. And at least the
community they were ejected from is spared the work of educating
(and fighting) the unwilling.
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]
| From | Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 00:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd3Rv-3pk-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10156 |
Dear Ian. Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17: > Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can > get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in > situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who > can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as > much as they can get away with. They will turn the dispute about > their personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to > increase the cost of enforcing the rules against them. And if that > fails they will do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further > punishment. Have you actually really seen such kind of behavior? I disagree with calling people toxic. Also I am not sure how you'd come to know about about any agenda behind the behavior. How do you know about the intentions? One part of the code of conduct as I got it is to assume good intentions, here, if I got you correctly you assume bad, harmful intentions for at least some people, people that you call toxic. I can concur that people are different, have different view-points, different ways to communicate, different language, different behavior. But people aren't inherently good or bad or toxic. Well there are people who just troll, but other than that? For me, any code of conduct and its enforcement needs to be based on actual behavior, never on assuming intentions or assuming about how people are. I just maintain some packages, but I am quite concerned about the current discussions on debian-project and other public mailing lists. I am quite confused and don't really know what is going on. I feel kinda overwhelmed by all I read so far and it does not give me a clear picture on what is actually really going on here. That it appears that a good portion of discussions happen on debian-private or other private channels does not appear to improve transparency as well. So just all the best for anyone in the position to do something meaningful to help improving the situation. At the moment I feel kinda uncomfortable about the Debian project. Ciao, -- Martin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 01:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd4ud-3RK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10166 |
Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> writes: > Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17: >> Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can >> get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in >> situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who >> can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as >> much as they can get away with. They will turn the dispute about their >> personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to increase the >> cost of enforcing the rules against them. And if that fails they will >> do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further punishment. > Have you actually really seen such kind of behavior? Yes. Worse, I was young and stupid and didn't recognize what was going on, so I let myself get taken in by it and made excuses for them and thus became part of the problem. I've hopefully gotten better at recognizing the signs earlier now. I don't think this is a problem that Debian is commonly plagued by, but there are absolutely people in this world who I don't want to have anything to do with, and if they join a community I'm a member of and that community won't eject them, I will leave. Because life is too short to be on edge all the time, to be in a community that I cannot trust at all, or to pour my emotional resources into that kind of scary black hole. Hopefully eventually they'll realize how much they hurt other people, but they can work on realizing that somewhere far away from me and anyone and anything I care about. I just want to have some fun working on free software and maybe changing the world a little bit, hopefully in the company of some people I can call friends. At no point in that process did I sign up to be part of a community psychological counseling effort for dangerous people. I am, to be clear, saying this in the abstract, and please don't read particular people from the current discussion into this comment. But you asked a general question about whether such people truly exist in the world, and the answer is yes, they do. Also, to be clear, if you're reading this and thinking "shit, am I one of those people?", you're not. Almost by definition. I have never seen anyone who acted that way ask themselves that question. One of their most defining characteristics is that nothing, *nothing* is *ever* their fault (although some of them can fake convincing apologies). -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web