"Felix" == Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
A number of people over the years have talked about embodying some of
the processes and protections of a trial in community management actions
in Debian. That has included ideas like having the project as a whole decide/affirm the decision, making evidence available, giving the
"accused" access to evidence and access to those who have made claims
against them.
I think there's broad agreement among those who have actually worked on community management in Debian that this would be a horrible idea and
would not make Debian a welcoming community.
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 2:25 PM Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
A number of people over the years have talked about embodying some of
the processes and protections of a trial in community management actions
in Debian. That has included ideas like having the project as a whole
decide/affirm the decision, making evidence available, giving the
"accused" access to evidence and access to those who have made claims
against them.
I think there's broad agreement among those who have actually worked on
community management in Debian that this would be a horrible idea and
would not make Debian a welcoming community.
Alas, I'll venture that the folks whose opinions you consider superior
have never been punished.
"Felix" == Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
Figuring out how to accomplish requesting a statement is a little
tricky, but I think it is worth the effort. DAM takes membership
actions (including warnings) by consensus. It's fairly difficult to get
all the members of DAM together.
I don't think it would work in practice for the request for a statement
to be a consensus action and to be followed shortly there after by
another consensus action to take a decision and to write it up. That
would require DAM to get together as a group twice in short succession;
given how hard it is to schedule DAM action, that would not work.
"Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
In the interest of full disclosure, I no longer have any affiliation"Felix" == Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
with DAM.
Felix> With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has
Felix> a long way to go in implementing basic precepts of
Felix> justice. For example, it would be good to hold hearings in
Felix> which the accused can make a statement before any action is
Felix> taken.
I think phrasing this in terms of justice and rights for keeping
governments accountable is likely to get a knee-jerk reaction from a
number of people who do not want to think of things that.
It's fairly clear to a number of us that maintaining standards of a
private community is a very different problem than maintaining justice
for people who have the power to deny life and liberty.
I do think there are standards of fairness and desirable conduct in
managing a community, but I don't think going back to the Magna Carta or other documents of human rights is very productive in moving the
discussion forward.
However, I do find there are areas where I agree with you.
I'm going to focus on DAM in this message rather than listmaster or the community team.
I think the calculus for each group works out differently.
As an example, because the community team cannot (for the most part)
take formal action, I think it is desirable to avoid too much process
for them.
Having witnessed things from a number of angles, I agree with you if
that I think it would be an improvement if DAM agreed to ask
a member for input before taking decisions that affect them.
DAM has long held that they don't do so as a matter of policy.
I don't have an explicit citation for this, but I'm fairly sure it was discussed back in 2019.
As I understand it, the argument is roughly that by the time things get
to DAM, they are unambiguous.
Unfortunately, it really rubs people the wrong way.
While I think it would be rare that it would change things, membership actions are infrequent, and it actually is possible for there to be understandings even late in a process that has gotten to DAM.
And while in theory DAM could change their decision if it became clear
their was a misunderstood, I think in practice the bar for changing a decision after it is made will end up being higher than the bar for
making a different decision in the first place.
Figuring out how to accomplish requesting a statement is a little
tricky, but I think it is worth the effort. DAM takes membership
actions (including warnings) by consensus. It's fairly difficult to get
all the members of DAM together.
I don't think it would work in practice for the request for a statement
to be a consensus action and to be followed shortly there after by
another consensus action to take a decision and to write it up. That
would require DAM to get together as a group twice in short succession;
given how hard it is to schedule DAM action, that would not work.
So, for this to be practical, the request for a statement would need to
be something that a single person, acting on their own (or with some
input but not full consensus) could do.
As a result, it's not reasonable to expect DAM to communicate all the
factors of the case to someone, or even to communicate all the
potentially public evidence. It could include a description of the triggering event in most cases.
A message might look something like:
Hi Sam,
We are writing to you because we're concerned about your message to blah with message-id blah-blah in which you said a bunch of bad things. We're considering this is the context of your broader interactions with the
project and wanted to give you an
opportunity to give us any input either about that message or your
interactions with the project before we decide if we are going to take
any action.
We anticipate being able to consider any input in the next 72 hours.
I honestly think it is achievable for DAM to send messages like that in
most situations and I think it would improve the perception of fairness.
There are some cases where there's not a triggering event or where the trigger that caused DAM to become focused is not something that can be shared. In those cases, the request for a statement would be a lot more vague.
I appreciate that several in the project would desire that DAM put
together the level of detail that they would send to the NMC as part of handling an appeal and send that to the person whose membership was being considered.
Realistically, that's not achievable given the level of effort involved. That's especially true for warnings.
Felix> Disciplinary actions are sufficiently rare to make that a
Felix> small burden on the members. Without a jury system, it is the
Felix> best we can do to offer a trial by our peers. Thank you!
A number of people over the years have talked about embodying some of
the processes and protections of a trial in community management actions
in Debian. That has included ideas like having the project as a whole decide/affirm the decision, making evidence available, giving the
"accused" access to evidence and access to those who have made claims
against them.
I think there's broad agreement among those who have actually worked on community management in Debian that this would be a horrible idea and
would not make Debian a welcoming community.
Unfortunately, no one has actually taken the time to write up a good explanation of why that's the case.
Put another way, I don't think we want anything like a trial and I think doing that would not accomplish goals we have for a community.
But I think the people who do want a trial are owed a good explanation
as to why the DPL and their delegates have consistently moved away from
such a system.
No, the DPL and project delegates are not required to do what vocal
members of the project suggest.
But I do think when a concern has been raised sufficiently, the DPL
and/or their delegates need to respond to this concern.
I think that "why don't we have trials for this sort of thing," has long-sense reached that bar.
I tried to get people to volunteer to work on this during my DPL term.
I felt that given my position of privilege it would be better for people
who faced some of the issues more directly to try to answer the question.
I was not able to find someone both interested and motivated back then.
Currently, I'm busy over on debian-vote.
If no one has written up a good answer to this by the time the secret
ballots GR is done, I'll give it my best effort.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 10:13:03 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
I guess the other possibility is that people really want warnings to be
way more serious than any meaning I personally would ascribe to the
word "warning" and are thinking of them as formal project censure or
something akin to that. In that case, my argument is that we need a
warning that's actually just a warning, and the thing we've got is much
too strong and the real problem is that we don't have something lighter
touch.
Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred
execution.
I think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that
went:
1. Verbal warning.
2. Written warning.
3. You're fired.
No, Debian isn't an employer, but I think the sense that DAM warnings
are used is similar.
I agree with the idea that more feedback with a lighter touch would be a
good idea, but I think anything with a lighter touch doesn't need DAM to
do it. We are all empowered to provide other developers feedback when
we see concerning behavior. People just need to do it. It doesn't take
any new rules.
Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
Figuring out how to accomplish requesting a statement is a little
tricky, but I think it is worth the effort. DAM takes membership
actions (including warnings) by consensus. It's fairly difficult to get all the members of DAM together.
I don't think it would work in practice for the request for a statement
to be a consensus action and to be followed shortly there after by
another consensus action to take a decision and to write it up. That
would require DAM to get together as a group twice in short succession; given how hard it is to schedule DAM action, that would not work.
I think Debian is in danger of a degenerative spiral, both here and in
other places. We make fewer and fewer decisions, slower and slower, which raises the cost of reversing a bad decision because it requires a second decision, which will also be slow. This raises the stakes of each
decision, so they have to be made more carefully. This makes the decision take more effort, and thus we make even fewer decisions, and those
decisions then carry even more weight. That in turn leads people to want them to be made even more carefully, and the spiral continues until we
talk endlessly and make no decisions at all.
We need a careful and slow process for kicking someone out of the project because that's a big deal. Having a careful and slow process for issuing
a warning is faintly absurd, and I think we've only arrived at that state because it's so hard to decide to ever do anything that they've reached an unrealistic level of apparent importance.
I think the solution in many, many places across Debian is to make more decisions, faster, and allow some of them to be wrong. Lower the stakes
and consequences of a bad decision, and lower the perceived weight of a single decision, rather than trying to make every decision perfect.
Anyway, to be more concrete, what your description of the process says to
me is that ideally DAM would be much larger and would deal with more minor things, such as warnings, in panels. Have a rotating "on call" or
something similar, empower them to make decisions on anything that comes
up while they're on call, and if someone thinks their decision is
profoundly unfair (I still think people are making far too much out of warnings), or if some more serious issue comes up, it can be reviewed by a different panel, a larger panel, or by DAM as a whole, but that would be rarer.
Having more people empowered to make decisions faster would also lower the perceived significance of each decision, since there's going to be some
minor human inconsistency and I think that's actually healthy. The goal
of warnings is not to precisely measure and describe exactly what someone
did wrong to some nonexistent objective standard. It's to say "hey, this
is making things shitty for other people, you need to knock it off."
People can grumble about that all they want; the grumbling doesn't require
a response. If they think twice about doing the thing that was making
things shitty for other people, mission accomplished. If it turns out
that what they were doing was fine in context, great! It was a warning;
no one did anything. If that was the first warning someone got for
something they didn't actually do, they've led a way more sheltered life
than I have, and my life has been pretty sheltered.
I dunno, I realize I may be being too cavalier here, but see the point
above about making more decisions, faster, and accepting a few mistakes.
If we end up with a rash of bogus warnings, we can reconsider. But right
now warnings are about as frequent as Papal encyclicals, and I think
partly as a result people have gotten really weird ideas about them.
I guess the other possibility is that people really want warnings to be
way more serious than any meaning I personally would ascribe to the word "warning" and are thinking of them as formal project censure or something akin to that. In that case, my argument is that we need a warning that's actually just a warning, and the thing we've got is much too strong and
the real problem is that we don't have something lighter touch.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 10:13:03 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
I guess the other possibility is that people really want warnings to be
way more serious than any meaning I personally would ascribe to the
word "warning" and are thinking of them as formal project censure or
something akin to that. In that case, my argument is that we need a
warning that's actually just a warning, and the thing we've got is much
too strong and the real problem is that we don't have something lighter
touch.
Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred
execution.
We have wildly different understandings of what a DAM warning is. Which >clearly points to a problem that needs to be solved!
I think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that
went:
1. Verbal warning.
2. Written warning.
3. You're fired.
No, Debian isn't an employer, but I think the sense that DAM warnings
are used is similar.
That seems like a mistake to me. Anything that makes Debian seem more
like an employer seems like a mistake to me. We just aren't; we're a >voluntary association that doesn't have any of the same requirements and
does not have the employees or facilities to have the same type of formal >process. We should actively avoid creating spurious parallels to
employment processes that we are not following, going to follow, or are >capable of following.
I agree with the idea that more feedback with a lighter touch would be a
good idea, but I think anything with a lighter touch doesn't need DAM to
do it. We are all empowered to provide other developers feedback when
we see concerning behavior. People just need to do it. It doesn't take
any new rules.
We do need DAM to do it sometimes because sometimes people refuse to
change their behavior unless someone with perceived authority tells them
they need to. Otherwise, they just counter-attack and escalate with the >person who tried to give them feedback.
I'm not calling out anyone specific here. I truly don't have anyone
specific in mind. This is just standard human stuff; in any sufficiently >large group of people, and Debian is more than large enough, there are
going to be a few people like that. It would be nice if peer feedback
were always sufficient, but this isn't how humans work.
Given that, and given that we clearly don't want to boot everyone who does >that (even apart from the fact that the project is loathe to boot anyone
for almost any reason, sometimes people really do change behavior once >someone they can't just ignore points out the rules of the community),
some sort of ability for someone with perceived authority to give a
warning that's actually just a warning, not an "expulsion with deferred >execution," is useful.
I think that makes sense, but I think it's really pretty much the same
thing. The "perceived authority" that means people treat feedback from
DAM differently is the authority to suspend or expell. Ultimately and unavoidably, a DAM warning comes with an undercurrent of that authority.
Ultimately Debian would be a better place if we were more open to
listening to each other.
We need a careful and slow process for kicking someone out of the projectbecause that's a big deal. Having a careful and slow process for issuing
BTW, also on that front, I think that announcing DAM warnings to the
project is a serious mistake. I understand the thought process that went into that decision, but I really don't agree with it. The effect is to
make someone feel attacked and shamed publicly, which directly interferes with the goal of a warning. It's also one of the major factors in making people feel like warnings are some sort of permanent black mark against
them, which I strongly do not want to be the case.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote on 21/02/2022 at 07:30:48+0100:
BTW, also on that front, I think that announcing DAM warnings to the project is a serious mistake. I understand the thought process that went into that decision, but I really don't agree with it. The effect is to make someone feel attacked and shamed publicly, which directly interferes with the goal of a warning. It's also one of the major factors in making people feel like warnings are some sort of permanent black mark against them, which I strongly do not want to be the case.
I agree. Warnings should be private at first. Some cases could be made
public if the problem was big enough to be mentioned, but generally I'd expect as a random member to not be informed of a warning.
I think phrasing this in terms of justice and rights for keepinggovernments accountable is likely to get a knee-jerk reaction from a
It's fairly clear to a number of us that maintaining standards of aprivate community is a very different problem than maintaining justice
Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution.
I
think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that went:
1. Verbal warning.
2. Written warning.
3. You're fired.
...Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution.
I don't believe that's quite accurate, a DAM warning isn't necessarily
meant as a final warning, it's a larger prod for an individual to course >correct their behaviour.
If an individual chooses to continue being disrespectful to other people >after general requests and then also from one or more formal warnings
from DAM, then I have little sympathy for them if they are kicked out of
the project after they continue with abusive behaviour.
I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step. I think we agree. A DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or expulsion. I don't have a problem with this. What bothers me is trying to pretend it's somethingless that's not a big deal.
less that's not a big deal.I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step. I think we agree. A DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or expulsion. I don't have a problem with this. What bothers me is trying to pretend it's something
By that logic becoming a DD is a potential step in getting suspended or >expelled. It's not the warning that gets people kicked out, it's the >continued poor behaviour. If a person takes their DAM warning (and
likely at that point requests from other DDs) seriously, then it doesn't >have to become a big deal.
Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of thing, or it
starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a presumption of future bad behavior. [...] This bothers me a lot. I think
this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite counterproductive
in attempting to just get someone to shift their behavior.
On February 21, 2022 12:56:43 PM UTC, Jonathan Carter<jcc@debian.org> wrote:something less that's not a big deal.
On 2022/02/21 14:40, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step. I think we agree. A DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or expulsion. I don't have a problem with this. What bothers me is trying to pretend it's
By that logic becoming a DD is a potential step in getting suspended orNo.
expelled. It's not the warning that gets people kicked out, it's the
continued poor behaviour. If a person takes their DAM warning (and
likely at that point requests from other DDs) seriously, then it doesn't
have to become a big deal.
It sounds to me like you are claiming that there's no change in the threshold for being removed due to the previous warning(s) and that's just not true.
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen expressed >> around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of thing, or it
starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a presumption of future bad >> behavior. [...] This bothers me a lot. I think
this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite counterproductive
in attempting to just get someone to shift their behavior.
Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen
expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of
thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
presumption of future bad behavior. [...] This bothers me a lot. I
think this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite
counterproductive in attempting to just get someone to shift their
behavior.
Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?
Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
It included this line:
If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with
other people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your
membership in the project.
Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
"fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
presumption of future bad behavior."
This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow
misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.
Either you're playing this up willfully, or you have a genuine problem understanding that *not* all such discussions are attacks targeting
you. Right now I can't tell which is more likely.
Please *stop* and think about what you're saying and doing here.
The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it
is a threat of expulsion. The minimal possible solution to people
feeling threatened would be to not threaten them. That may not be
enough, but that would be a first step. Focusing on the feeling shifts
the blame and buries the lede.
Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern in
the way you participate in Debian interactions.
Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:29 AM Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.
Thank you, but despite your condescending tone I retain the right to interpret who expresses sympathy for me, and who does not.
But please don't forget that a person vanishing from a heated discussion
just in a whim creates the feeling of victory in the orht discussion
parties.
And I KNOW what I would do as participant of a heated discussion after receiving a DAM warning.
That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.
What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and probably counterproductive.
Exactly. This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing warnings. The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion. I think we're starting with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly attacked.
and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly shamed.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> wrote:
Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern
in the way you participate in Debian interactions.
Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?
This, too, is a projection.
I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen
expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of
thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
presumption of future bad behavior. [...] This bothers me a lot. I
think this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite
counterproductive in attempting to just get someone to shift their
behavior.
Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?
That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.
What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and >probably counterproductive. In other words, I think your reactions were >understandable and are evidence that the warning system is not working the >way that I think that it should because it doesn't provide enough >psychological space for people to understand it as I think it should be >intended.
And to be clear I think this is a problem with the tools that we have >available and the process we're currently using, not with how people are >trying to use the imperfect tools that we have.
Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
It included this line:
If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with
other people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your
membership in the project.
Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
"fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
presumption of future bad behavior."
Exactly. This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing >warnings. The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion. I think we're starting >with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to >course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly >attacked, and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely >well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different >problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly >shamed.
Your statement is the opposite of what I felt. In fact, I asked for the circumstances to be published on debian-private. It was calming to me,
so your interpretation is not correct.
Finally to my original point, I believe that your conclusions contradict
mine so frequently because you overlaid your opinion onto mine, i.e
projected your perception onto mine.
Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
conflict where there was none.
Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> wrote:
Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern
in the way you participate in Debian interactions.
Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?
This, too, is a projection.
I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.
I don't think that's what Enrico is talking about. I think he's talking about the way that you attacked me in response to a message in which I was expressing support and sympathy for your position, based on a misunderstanding of my message and what looked to me like an assumption of bad faith. This is also not the first time that you've done this to both
me and others, you have never apologized, and you seem to be intent on continuing to do that with me and others at random intervals instead of extending a presumption of good faith and trying to find a non-hostile reading of other people's words.
My phrasing doubtless could have been better or clearer. It always can
be. But you can ask questions rather than making assumptions!
When you do this and then, a few messages later, talk about how you think Debian should have a warm and inclusive culture of compromise, it's quite frustrating and confusing. If your goal is to create a warm and inclusive culture, please start by not assuming other people are trying to attack
you. Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating conflict where there was none.
Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it
is a threat of expulsion. The minimal possible solution to people
feeling threatened would be to not threaten them. That may not be
enough, but that would be a first step. Focusing on the feeling shifts
the blame and buries the lede.
It's a balance, because if people would always course-correct without
being told they have to with someone with perceived authority, we would
not be having this discussion because it wouldn't be necessary.
I get the impression you think I'm hair-splitting, any communication from
DAM is inherently a threat, and we should just accept that. I think it's true that any formal communication from someone who can kick people out of the project has some level of implied consequences, but I don't think it's true that we can't fine-tune the implication. I think it matters a lot whether it's public or private, for example, and whether we explicitly
raise expulsion or not.
That said, it is entirely possible that I am being far too optimistic
about the number of people who are willing to ignore peer feedback but are willing to substantially change their behavior when they get DAM feedback. Maybe the people who are unwilling to accept feedback unless it comes from someone in perceived authority are already too harmful to the project to
try to spend more time and energy on, and a direct warning of expulsion
*is* the right way to go about it. I hope that isn't the case, but I
admit that it's very worrisome when people won't hear peer feedback and I admit I personally don't want to spend a lot of time working with aggressively confrontational and draining people in the hope that they'll change.
Regardless, though, I really do not like that we've backed ourselves into
a corner that involves public shaming (even if it's not intended to be
that) as part of the process.
OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name is like ringing a doorbell with
a sledge hammer. If that's now the standard for threatening removal, I think it's FAR to low. This worries me more than it being too hard to make decisions.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 5:24:47 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I no longer have any affiliation"Felix" == Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
with DAM.
Felix> With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has
Felix> a long way to go in implementing basic precepts of
Felix> justice. For example, it would be good to hold hearings in
Felix> which the accused can make a statement before any action is
Felix> taken.
I think phrasing this in terms of justice and rights for keeping
governments accountable is likely to get a knee-jerk reaction from a
number of people who do not want to think of things that.
It's fairly clear to a number of us that maintaining standards of a
private community is a very different problem than maintaining justice
for people who have the power to deny life and liberty.
I do think there are standards of fairness and desirable conduct in managing a community, but I don't think going back to the Magna Carta or other documents of human rights is very productive in moving the
discussion forward.
However, I do find there are areas where I agree with you.
I'm going to focus on DAM in this message rather than listmaster or the community team.
I think the calculus for each group works out differently.
As an example, because the community team cannot (for the most part)
take formal action, I think it is desirable to avoid too much process
for them.
While it is true that Debian is not a government and has no power to deprive someone of life or liberty, it's also not just a social club from which expulsion has no real consequences. For some people, their professional work is connected to Debian and being expelled from Debian effectively causes them to have to get a new job. Many Debian Developers have a lot of personal identity wrapped up in Debian (myself included). Being expelled from Debian would also be an emotional blow.
Scott> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone"Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
Scott> losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name
Scott> is like ringing a doorbell with a sledge hammer.
I strongly agree. And I understand why it is that you (quite reasonably given the information made available to project members) believe that
has happened.
As a project,a let's agree we're not going to do that, and let's figure
out how to build sufficient trust that we can believe in that agreement.
"Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:06 AM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
conflict where there was none.
I think you are blowing it out of proportion. There is no conflict but
a diversity of opinion.
And, as I already told too in other mail threads that you are quite
efficient at interpreting what people wrote to you the worst possible
way [...]
Whether it's intentional or not, I'm still wondering, although the
regular repetition of this pattern tends to make things become clearer.
Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution. I think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that went:
1. Verbal warning.
2. Written warning.
3. You're fired.
Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution. I
think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that went: >>
1. Verbal warning.
2. Written warning.
3. You're fired.
In my eyes this sequence is missing some
Mediation attempt on a face-to-face medium
which I would put between 1. and 2.
On February 23, 2022 8:50:58 AM UTC, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote: >Am Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:06:17AM -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution. I
think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that went:
1. Verbal warning.
2. Written warning.
3. You're fired.
In my eyes this sequence is missing some
Mediation attempt on a face-to-face medium
which I would put between 1. and 2.
It's not a proposal. It's a description of what I've seen in my working experience.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 156:28:42 |
| Calls: | 10,384 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,469 |