Several people forwarded me copies of the IRC log that Josh pointed to here on the list today in response to my message this morning.
I responded to that off-list. I've been debating today whether to respond on-list. I'm not sure this is a good idea, but hey I'm trying my best to be reasoned but also to acknowledge that there's some real frustration here I'm feeling and others are feeling. Hopefully together we can share our feelings in a constructive way and build a stronger community. So, here's what I said with a few minor modifications. It sounds like you're trying to say that Ian is not supporting a consensus process and is thinking of this as a war. You may be hinting strongly that Ian actually would be the one who would turn it into rearguard battles. I can't say that I feel any surprise either at the IRc log you pointed to or when I think about that claim. As I said earlier today I feel very disappointed when I read some claims that Ian has made on-list and in that IRC log. For myself, I don't think that matters much to the points I've generally been trying to make, although I'm very open to listening to your opinions and thoughts and open to re-evaluating things. I'd like Ian to act with compassion and respect both for the process and those involved. That's true regardless of whether he's acted that way in the past and regardless of what he states his goals are. I also respect that he's under a lot of pressure. It's fine to withdraw from a discussion and say "Hey I'm not up to being constructive now." I have done that; we'll all do that from time to time. I'd like to create a process that rewards both participating constructively and withdrawing at those times when we cannot do so. If you play nice, you get to play and we agree to listen and think seriously about your feelings, needs and technical points. I'd like to create a process that excludes those who don't play nice in these ways but insist on participating. Even in that I hope for compassion. We're not excluding people to be assholes. I'd prefer that we not even judge them; we all have periods when our emotions get the best of us. I hope we exclude them to get work done and only so far as we need to exclude them to get that work done. Would I be surprised if Ian accepted the challenge i raised? Yes, absolutely! Would I be happy if he accepted that challenge and lived up to it, yes very much so. I'd also be happy if he's not ready for that and takes as much of a step back from the discussion and even the project as he needs. I create a space for Ian to act the part I hope he will act; either to participate constructively or to recooperate with respect and honor. I invite him into that space. If he steps in, I'm happy. If not, I really hope we can all get work done without his participation. Obviously I'm only one person; whether this works depends in part on whether others agree with my approach enough to make it real. Those are my thoughts on technical decision making. I also understand we're a community, and we need to have processes to exclude people from our community. We have the listmasters, IRC operators, COC, and DAM among other things. I hope those folks act with compassion too, but they need compassion both for those who are frustrated when someone decides not to act with consensus as well as for someone so frustrated that they give up on consensus. We cannot destroy our role as a welcoming community just to be open to a couple of very frustrated folks. Compassion can and I hope is combined with firmness. Fighting wars against part of the project is not welcoming. I don't support violence being used to combat violence. "My enemies are not acting in good faith, so I won't either," is not something I hope we accept. At the point where we no longer trust someone to follow our processes with good faith, I don't think they should be a developer. We trust developers too much; we give them too much individual responsibility. If someone were going to make a case about Ian to listmaster, IRC operators or the Dam, I think it would be best if the initial case came from someone who generally agrees with Ian. If Ian really has given up on consensus and continues to participate in the process, surely there is someone who values user choice and who thinks Ian has crossed a line. Similarly, complaints about TC members might be better coming from within the TC. I'd ask people to think really carefully and to work with the DPL, the appropriate teams (listmaster, IRC ops, etc), anti-harassment team, before introducing a GR. If you really believe that you've been unable to get redress for an issue of trust, then I understand the need to go forward with potentially painful process. There is real harm that the project suffers when we decline to act when action is required. However there's real harm in excluding folks from the project or from discussions or roles within the project. I hope with all my heart that people try their best to balance that. Because damn it is hard. Telling people to sit there and take it with a thicker skin drives people away. However, having mud fights where we take action to exclude folks really hurts too. Please, be sensitive and make the best decision you can. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/0000014998bc340b-447d98d5-1ca5-429c-885f-116689a09aa9-000...@email.amazonses.com
