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

Groups > linux.debian.project > #10080 > unrolled thread

On having and using a Code of Conduct

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

Contents

  On having and using a Code of Conduct Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-02 13:30 +0100
    Compassion For Those Worried Whether They are Welcome Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-02 13:50 +0100
      Re: Compassion For Those Worried Whether They are Welcome Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-02 14:30 +0100
        Re: Compassion For Those Worried Whether They are Welcome Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 01:40 +0100
    Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 19:30 +0100
      Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
        Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 12:30 +0100
          Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 00:40 +0100
            Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Matthew Vernon <matthewv@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-05 20:20 +0100
              Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 22:50 +0100
        Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2019-01-04 23:00 +0100
          Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 00:40 +0100
      Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 00:40 +0100
        Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 03:10 +0100

#10080 — On having and using a Code of Conduct

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

Hey folks,

We've been having some very tense discussions in various fora lately,
and it's striking that yet again we seem to be re-hashing arguments
about having a Code of Conduct [1], and enforcing it. It's massively
draining, and should not be necessary.

Fundamentally, I don't believe the adoption of our Code of Conduct
should be controversial. It's not like there are any points in it that
were not already valid as the most basic rules for interaction, even
before it was officially ratified.

For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm worried
I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single mistake", please give
it a rest already. These are basic principles on how we want all
people to interact. If you make a mistake and do a bad thing, people
will tell you and ask you to re-word, apologise, whatever. It happens
to all of us, nobody is perfect. Accept it, learn from it and move on.

A mistake doesn't make you a *bad person*. What *does* cause problems
is repeated digressions and a refusal to improve behaviour. There's a
world of difference there.

[1] https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Google-bait:       http://www.debian.org/CD/free-linux-cd
  Debian does NOT ship free CDs. Please do NOT contact the mailing
  lists asking us to send them to you.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10081 — Compassion For Those Worried Whether They are Welcome

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

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:

    Steve> For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm
    Steve> worried I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single
    Steve> mistake", please give it a rest already. These are basic
    Steve> principles on how we want all people to interact. If you make
    Steve> a mistake and do a bad thing, people will tell you and ask
    Steve> you to re-word, apologise, whatever.

Steve, I agree that the code of conduct is important.
I agree that some comments sound like they are undermining it or trying
to rehash old arguments.

I think that's draining.

However, I'd like to take a moment to ask all of us to empathize with a
common position.
We've seen two people who made significant technical contributions
expelled from the project.  If you weren't paying a lot of attention,
there were no obvious public signs that a process was underway.

Many members of our project have never had to interact with a concerned
DAM team or the sharper parts of our conflict resolution process.

It's easy to worry that something will spiral out of control and you
will be ejected from a community that you've put a lot of your heart
into over the years.
As you say, we're all human and we all make mistakes.

As humans it is natural to feel insecure when you see something like
this happen.

Asking for reassurance that we'll be treated with compassion and
empathy, given a chance to understand what is going on and heard when
we speak our part of the story is natural.
THESE INSECURITIES AND ASKING FOR THAT REASSURANCE DOES NOT UNDERMINE
THE CODE OF CONDUCT.

In this instance the insecurities are stronger because we're seeing
people ejected and claiming that they were not given those chances and
that they were surprised.

To be clear, I am speaking from personal experience here.  I think I've
made positive contributions to the project, and  I know people over the
years have come to me when they had problems with what I did.
If I think about it rationally, I have confidence that I'd be given a
chance to learn and improve.
And yet I looked at this and wondered if I'd someday find myself the
subject of a surprise ejection.

I was able to convince myself that my fear stems from how much I care
about Debian.  I do have confidence that even if there are trouble it
can be worked through.  For that matter, even if I found myself on the
out, I could respectfully work to get back in and improve the process.

Yet I firmly support the code of conduct and  the importance of creating
a safe space.

I ask you to separate those who are trying to question the code of
conduct from those who are seeking a very natural reassurance.

Thanks,

--Sam

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

#10082 — Re: Compassion For Those Worried Whether They are Welcome

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 07:45:55AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
>
>    Steve> For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm
>    Steve> worried I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single
>    Steve> mistake", please give it a rest already. These are basic
>    Steve> principles on how we want all people to interact. If you make
>    Steve> a mistake and do a bad thing, people will tell you and ask
>    Steve> you to re-word, apologise, whatever.
>
>Steve, I agree that the code of conduct is important.
>I agree that some comments sound like they are undermining it or trying
>to rehash old arguments.
>
>I think that's draining.
>
>However, I'd like to take a moment to ask all of us to empathize with a
>common position.
>We've seen two people who made significant technical contributions
>expelled from the project.  If you weren't paying a lot of attention,
>there were no obvious public signs that a process was underway.
>
>Many members of our project have never had to interact with a concerned
>DAM team or the sharper parts of our conflict resolution process.
>
>It's easy to worry that something will spiral out of control and you
>will be ejected from a community that you've put a lot of your heart
>into over the years.
>As you say, we're all human and we all make mistakes.
>
>As humans it is natural to feel insecure when you see something like
>this happen.
>
>Asking for reassurance that we'll be treated with compassion and
>empathy, given a chance to understand what is going on and heard when
>we speak our part of the story is natural.
>THESE INSECURITIES AND ASKING FOR THAT REASSURANCE DOES NOT UNDERMINE
>THE CODE OF CONDUCT.

Nod. Apologies if my message sounds insensitive here! There are some
who I think might appear to be trying to undermine it, but I agree I'm
being unfair. Thanks for the correction.

>In this instance the insecurities are stronger because we're seeing
>people ejected and claiming that they were not given those chances and
>that they were surprised.
>
>To be clear, I am speaking from personal experience here.  I think I've
>made positive contributions to the project, and  I know people over the
>years have come to me when they had problems with what I did.
>If I think about it rationally, I have confidence that I'd be given a
>chance to learn and improve.
>And yet I looked at this and wondered if I'd someday find myself the
>subject of a surprise ejection.
>
>I was able to convince myself that my fear stems from how much I care
>about Debian.  I do have confidence that even if there are trouble it
>can be worked through.  For that matter, even if I found myself on the
>out, I could respectfully work to get back in and improve the process.
>
>Yet I firmly support the code of conduct and  the importance of creating
>a safe space.
>
>I ask you to separate those who are trying to question the code of
>conduct from those who are seeking a very natural reassurance.

Agreed.

Happy New Year to you and yours!

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane

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

#10094 — Re: Compassion For Those Worried Whether They are Welcome

> >>>>>> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
> >
> >    Steve> For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm
> >    Steve> worried I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single
> >    Steve> mistake", please give it a rest already. These are basic
> >    Steve> principles on how we want all people to interact. If you make
> >    Steve> a mistake and do a bad thing, people will tell you and ask
> >    Steve> you to re-word, apologise, whatever.
> >

> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 07:45:55AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> >Asking for reassurance that we'll be treated with compassion and
> >empathy, given a chance to understand what is going on and heard when
> >we speak our part of the story is natural.
> >THESE INSECURITIES AND ASKING FOR THAT REASSURANCE DOES NOT UNDERMINE
> >THE CODE OF CONDUCT.

Le Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 01:26:07PM +0000, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> 
> Nod. Apologies if my message sounds insensitive here! There are some
> who I think might appear to be trying to undermine it, but I agree I'm
> being unfair. Thanks for the correction.

Hi Steve, and happy new year to you and everybody,

thanks for your clarification; I found your original message very
troubling and accusatory indeed.

Frankly speaking, your reply to Sam does not entierly dissipate the
discomfort that I had when I read your first message.  When you write
"There are some who I think might appear to be trying to undermine [the
CoC]", I think that you unfortunately create a climate of suspicion.
The more I read the CoC, the more I think that its point 2 ("assuming
good faith") is very important and effective.  (Mildening your words
with "might appear to be trying" does solve the problem, think for
instance if I would add that it perhaps may possibly make it even
worse).  I think that referring to specific statements (and not to
people, even collectively under "some") would have made your point much
stronger.

Adding "I agree I'm being unfair" adds to the confusion, in my opinion.
If you have doubts on the facts, but feel that you need to react in
order to counteract "those trying to undermine" our CoC, may I suggest
to focus on the post that you find most ambiguous, state your concerns
and ask for a clarification ?  You would not need to follow up as people
can then judge the facts by themselves after reading the clarification
(or seeing its absence).

Have a nice day,

Charles

PS: thank you nevertheless for expressing your views in public (as
opposed to debian-private).

-- 
Charles Plessy                                  Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team         http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from work,           https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home,                 https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy

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

#10111

Hi all,

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:25 AM Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm worried
> I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single mistake", please give
> it a rest already. These are basic principles on how we want all
> people to interact.
<snip>

I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC
itself.  Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few
who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people
are worrying:

  1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected)

  2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them

  3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually
separated to reduce confirmation bias)

  4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted

  5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)

I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them
understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might
have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before
starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they
cannot provide it.

IANADD, but the limited information available about the process and the
outcomes is difficult in a community that is typically as transparent as
possible, and I think it is reasonable for people to have concerns about a
closed process.  Any information that can be provided about the process
would probably help with these concerns -- and it should be published
somewhere other than mailing list archives.

This situation is especially difficult since the interpretation of the
CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the
a-h team is interpreting it.  Maybe writing a more in-depth document on
the a-h team's interpretation of the CoC would help (examples of bad
behavior, examples of behavior that although someone might be offended,
is not forbidden)?

In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him
after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the
project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which
although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the
offending post before doing so).  However, I only have half of the story.

Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward
guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about
the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for
evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the
reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal
proceedings).

This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be
highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is
interpreting it.  Maybe writing a more in-depth document on what the a-h
team expects and what kind of behavior is the most common or most
disruptive would help?

(As an aside: I have noticed a tendency on the lists for people to pick
out the point they think is the worst in an email, beat on it
repeatedly, and ignore the rest of the argument -- this has the very
negative side-effect of making people feel like their main point has not
been and will not be heard.)

--
Eldon Koyle

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

#10112

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

On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:25 AM Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm worried
> > I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single mistake", please give
> > it a rest already. These are basic principles on how we want all
> > people to interact.
> <snip>
> 
> I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC
> itself.  Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few
> who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people
> are worrying:
> 
>   1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected)
> 
>   2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them
> 
>   3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually
> separated to reduce confirmation bias)

There is a separation of roles.  The Debian Account Managers (DAMs)
have the delegated power to decide on expulsions and additions to the
project members.  (Latest delegation is at
<https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/03/msg00001.html>.)
The anti-harassment team is the usual contact point for complaints and
can recommend actions to the DAMs (or other teams) but doesn't have
delegated powers (as I understand it).

>   4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted
> 
>   5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
[...]

There is, since any decision by the DPL or a delegate can be overridden
by General Resolution.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer

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

#10115

Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:

> On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
>>   5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
> [...]
>
> There is, since any decision by the DPL or a delegate can be overridden
> by General Resolution.

This isn't really an appeals process in the usual sense, though - more a
Big Red Button. DAM might like to consider letting the DPL be a point of
review/appeal?

Regards,

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

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

#10145

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:26:01AM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> >>   5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
> > [...]
> >
> > There is, since any decision by the DPL or a delegate can be overridden
> > by General Resolution.
> 
> This isn't really an appeals process in the usual sense, though - more a
> Big Red Button. DAM might like to consider letting the DPL be a point of
> review/appeal?

Appeals to the DPL wouldn't be compatible with the current version of our
constitution.

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

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

#10157

Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:26:01AM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
>> >>   5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > There is, since any decision by the DPL or a delegate can be overridden
>> > by General Resolution.
>> 
>> This isn't really an appeals process in the usual sense, though - more a
>> Big Red Button. DAM might like to consider letting the DPL be a point of
>> review/appeal?
>
> Appeals to the DPL wouldn't be compatible with the current version of our
> constitution.

That is sort-of orthogonal to whether they'd be a good idea or not :)

Yes, I see that the constitution specifically prohibits the DPL from
withdrawing the delegation of a particular decision and from over-ruling
delegates. Presumably DAM could say "we will voluntarily refer appeals
to the DPL for their opinion and do as the DPL says", but that might be
too much of subverting the intent of the constitution. I'm not sure we
really want to have people delegated just to review DAM appeals...

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

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

#10163

On 15273 March 1977, Matthew Vernon wrote: 

>> Appeals to the DPL wouldn't be compatible with the current 
>> version of our constitution. 
> That is sort-of orthogonal to whether they'd be a good idea or 
> not :) Yes, I see that the constitution specifically prohibits 
> the DPL from withdrawing the delegation of a particular decision 
> and from over-ruling delegates. Presumably DAM could say "we 
> will voluntarily refer appeals to the DPL for their opinion and 
> do as the DPL says", but that might be too much of subverting 
> the intent of the constitution.

If we say that, we would speak against the constitution, as that 
explicitly mentions DPL not having stuff to do with accounts 
(8.1.2).

> I'm not sure we really want to have people delegated just to 
> review DAM appeals...

No need for that. Footnote 3 of the expulsion procedure mail shows 
one body we have.
 
-- 
bye, Joerg
The answer to life’s problems aren’t at the bottom of a beer 
bottle, they’re on TV.

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

#10141

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

On 1/3/19 9:39 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The anti-harassment team is the usual contact point for complaints and
> can recommend actions to the DAMs (or other teams) but doesn't have
> delegated powers (as I understand it).

With

99662c15 · Remove Norbert Preining (anti-harassment team decision)

Norbert's blog was removed from Planet Debian. This does not help to
prove that the a-h team is not acting as both prosecution and
judge/jury. Their wiki page https://wiki.debian.org/AntiHarassment also
says, that they 'take or propose whatever actions appropriate'.

That sounds more like a self-made police than a team that you trust to
mediate an issue. In my opinion, all kinds of decisions should be done
by a team that has the delegation to do them - DAM. Nobody else.



-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

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

#10146

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:57:00PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> In my opinion, all kinds of decisions should be done
> by a team that has the delegation to do them - DAM. Nobody else.

The only delegated power available to DAM is to rule on who is a member of
the project - nothing more, nothing less.



-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

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

#10144

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 11:26:11AM -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC
> itself.  Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few
> who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people
> are worrying:

So, responding to those points in turn (and bearing in mind that this is
not an official statement of any kind):
 
>   1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected)

Process of what? It's true that the relationship between AH and DAM is new
and we're finding how best to work together, but that's not really a
process.

>   2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them

That's a rather simplistic view. Cases reaching AH and DAM typically do so
as a last resort after going through many iterations of feedback.

>   3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually
> separated to reduce confirmation bias)

Except that they can't actually *do* anything above and beyond and ordinary
DD. AH are not delegated and don't have any special powers; it's up to
maintainers of services whether their recommendations are implemented.

>   4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted

If you have suggestions of how to open proceedings up without compromising
the confidence expectations of any of the involved parties, we'd all be
delighted to hear them. It's a hard problem, it always has been.

>   5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)

The ultimate appeal is through a GR, but that's a pretty blunt tool. We
have proposals in discussion internally already to make this better.

> I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them
> understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might
> have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before
> starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they
> cannot provide it.

What is it that leads you to believe it then?

> IANADD, but the limited information available about the process and the
> outcomes is difficult in a community that is typically as transparent as
> possible, and I think it is reasonable for people to have concerns about a
> closed process.  Any information that can be provided about the process
> would probably help with these concerns -- and it should be published
> somewhere other than mailing list archives.
>
> This situation is especially difficult since the interpretation of the
> CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the
> a-h team is interpreting it.  Maybe writing a more in-depth document on
> the a-h team's interpretation of the CoC would help (examples of bad
> behavior, examples of behavior that although someone might be offended,
> is not forbidden)?
> 
> In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him
> after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the
> project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which
> although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the
> offending post before doing so).  However, I only have half of the story.

If you have only one half of a story, it is dangerous to draw absolute
conclusions from it.

> Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward
> guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about
> the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for
> evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the
> reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal
> proceedings).

Other people have expressed far more cogently than I can how Debian, AH and
DAM are very much not courts and these are not legal proceedings. Debian is
a private members organisation and is governed primarily by its own
foundation documents.

> This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be
> highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is
> interpreting it.  Maybe writing a more in-depth document on what the a-h
> team expects and what kind of behavior is the most common or most
> disruptive would help?

All Debian teams are volunteer-staffed and overstretched. If you are able
to make a contribution to this document in some way, I'm sure they would
appreicate the help.


-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

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

#10149

Hi Jonathan,

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:34 PM Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 11:26:11AM -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> > I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC
> > itself.  Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few
> > who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people
> > are worrying:
>
> So, responding to those points in turn (and bearing in mind that this is
> not an official statement of any kind):
>
> >   1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected)
>
> Process of what? It's true that the relationship between AH and DAM is new
> and we're finding how best to work together, but that's not really a
> process.

I should have said "expulsion process".

I assumed there was a process to ensure expulsions (or recommendations for
expulsion) were handled fairly, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear
in my initial
message.  This was not about planet, etc. but the removal of DD status.

> >   2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them
>
> That's a rather simplistic view. Cases reaching AH and DAM typically do so
> as a last resort after going through many iterations of feedback.
>
> >   3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually
> > separated to reduce confirmation bias)
>
> Except that they can't actually *do* anything above and beyond and ordinary
> DD. AH are not delegated and don't have any special powers; it's up to
> maintainers of services whether their recommendations are implemented.
>

They do have a position of trust, even if they don't have powers.

> >   4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted
>
> If you have suggestions of how to open proceedings up without compromising
> the confidence expectations of any of the involved parties, we'd all be
> delighted to hear them. It's a hard problem, it always has been.
>
> >   5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
>
> The ultimate appeal is through a GR, but that's a pretty blunt tool. We
> have proposals in discussion internally already to make this better.
>
> > I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them
> > understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might
> > have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before
> > starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they
> > cannot provide it.
>
> What is it that leads you to believe it then?

I am assuming positive intent, and it is also how I imagined AH was
supposed to work, but I may have been making incorrect assumptions
about any informal procedures that exist there as well.

<snip>
> > In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him
> > after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the
> > project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which
> > although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the
> > offending post before doing so).  However, I only have half of the story.
>
> If you have only one half of a story, it is dangerous to draw absolute
> conclusions from it.

That is why I mentioned that I only have half of the story, but it is also
exactly the problem I have with #2 -- if we don't give people the opportunity
to address accusations against them, we are operating on half of the story.

> > Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward
> > guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about
> > the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for
> > evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the
> > reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal
> > proceedings).
>
> Other people have expressed far more cogently than I can how Debian, AH and
> DAM are very much not courts and these are not legal proceedings. Debian is
> a private members organisation and is governed primarily by its own
> foundation documents.
>

Although AH is not a court, I feel that extreme measures should be applied
as fairly as possible.  Courts were designed with this purpose in mind, and
that is why I made the comparison.  I think a process for expulsion would
assuage peoples fears, even if it doesn't resemble a court proceeding -- as
long as it gives them a chance to give their side of the story and be heard
by someone who hasn't been searching for evidence against them.

> > This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be
> > highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is
> > interpreting it.  Maybe writing a more in-depth document on what the a-h
> > team expects and what kind of behavior is the most common or most
> > disruptive would help?
>
> All Debian teams are volunteer-staffed and overstretched. If you are able
> to make a contribution to this document in some way, I'm sure they would
> appreicate the help.

I am willing, however I don't know exactly how AH are interpreting the CoC.
If you would like me to write something up with my assumptions and send
it to you directly, feel free to send me a direct email.

Also, since it sounds like there is a lot going on behind the scenes
on -private,
I'm going to try to leave these threads alone now.


--
Eldon Koyle

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web