Yes, I saw that question; I feel like it's jumping the gun to talk about how to punish people who claim to have been harmed.
I would prefer to guide the conversation to how to minimize damage to anyone involved and hasten resolution and amends. On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 9:24 AM Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > As a reminder, the original proposal that troubles me was: > > > I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to > > me that the point of "public accusations" should constitute > > harassment in and of itself. Do we make that explicit? > > > > On 11/10/2019 9:18 AM, Andrew Musselman wrote: > > I agree, having a quiet period can allow that pattern to continue longer. > > > > But I'm not sure the suggestion is that anyone can't discuss what > happened, > > just that a full-on open-letter or Twitter thread in the moment could be > > more destructive. Discussing not in public, to gauge reactions and > > opinions, would be constructive in my view. > > > > I'm not sure it's being proposed that after an alleged incident has been > > inspected that there's a gag order for all time. I believe this community > > can find a way to support itself, and if there are grievances that are > not > > being resolved I would expect that discussion in public would be a > natural > > next step. > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 8:34 AM Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The problem with even a finite duration quiet period is that it may cut > >> off the opportunity for other people to come forward and say things like > >> "X did the same thing to me yesterday and also passed it off as joke > >> when I complained." or "X said I must have misheard.", or "I overheard X > >> talking to Y, and X really did say Z". It risks forcing each accuser to > >> stand alone, with no opportunity to find witnesses, or to find out about > >> other incidents that would show a pattern and practice. After a > >> conference ends may be too late to find witnesses to an interaction. > >> > >> Handling a complaint fairly would mean dismissing it if there is a > >> dispute about facts and no supporting evidence, just two equally > >> believable people giving different accounts of the same interaction. > >> > >> However, as I understand the proposal it is to make going public with an > >> accusation at any time, not just during a limited duration quiet period > >> and regardless of whether it is true, an automatic CoC violation. If the > >> accusation is both public and false, the person making it faces serious > >> real-world consequences, including a defamation lawsuit and being > >> publicly shown to be a liar. > >> > >> On 11/10/2019 7:16 AM, Andrew Musselman wrote: > >>> The tough part about taking conflict directly to a public sphere is it > >>> doesn’t give people a chance to make amends quickly before escalation. > >>> > >>> An internal, confidential grace period can give someone a chance to > >> realize > >>> their alleged behavior affected and/or harmed someone else, whether it > >> was > >>> intentional or not. > >>> > >>> I would expect any complaint to be accepted and taken seriously and > >> handled > >>> fairly. If we already have a problem with complaints being ignored or > >>> mishandled then we should deal with it in a concrete way now, likewise > if > >>> it becomes a problem. > >>> > >>> Best > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 01:28 Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 11/10/2019 1:02 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >>>>> Patricia, > >>>>> I think Ross said it well. > >>>>> Just because I saw someone commit murder, doesn't give me the right > to > >>>> beat > >>>>> (or hang, or incite others to do) the perpetrator and fair trial is > >>>> still a > >>>>> necessity in our civilized society. Lynching is (I hoped) a thing of > >> the > >>>>> past. I am not willing to give up the basic pillars of our society, > >> just > >>>>> because someone was offended, or even hurt. Sorry, but to me, the > >>>> principle > >>>>> of "rather let a murderer go free, than risk convict an innocent" is > >>>> still > >>>>> a strong one. But lately, it seems to no longer be the case. > >>>> > >>>> Witnessing a murder does not give you the right to beat, lynch, etc. > On > >>>> the other hand, you can say publicly "I saw X murder Y", and the > police > >>>> will not switch from investigating X to penalizing you just because > you > >>>> said that. Of course, X has a strong case for defamation damages if > you > >>>> say it falsely. > >>>> > >>>> If I understand what you are saying, and please post a correction if I > >>>> got this wrong, if the victim of an ASF code of conduct violation > >>>> described the violation publicly you would want the ASF to switch from > >>>> investigating the original violation to penalizing the victim for > >>>> talking about it, regardless of the truth of the victim's remarks. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> With all due respect > >>>>> Niclas > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 2:48 PM Ross Gardler > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> IN THIS MAIL I AM ATTEMPTING TO DIG DEEPER THAN THE SURFACE. I AM > NOT > >>>>>> ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ANY JUDGEMENT ON ANY SPECIFIC OPINION OR > >> SITUATION. I > >>>>>> BEG THAT PEOPLE DON'T TRY TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES. IF SOMETHING > >> SEEMS > >>>>>> "OFF" IN SOME WAY PLEASE ASK FOR CLARIFICATION. > >>>> > >>>> Exactly my position. > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Historically rules of confidentiality have also protected the > innocent > >>>>>> from false accusations and trial by media. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's very hard to find the right balance. How might the ASF best > >> handle > >>>> a > >>>>>> situation like this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ross > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>> From: Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM > >>>>>> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: FYI > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Could you clarify who would be prohibited from public statements by > >>>> this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Historically, rules requiring confidentiality have been used to > >> restrict > >>>>>> victims of harassment from talking publicly about incidents. That > has > >>>>>> let harassment and assault continue by preventing discovery of a > >> pattern > >>>>>> of behavior with multiple victims. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 11/9/2019 4:55 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >>>>>>> I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to > >> me > >>>>>> that > >>>>>>> the point of "public accusations" should constitute harassment in > and > >>>> of > >>>>>>> itself. Do we make that explicit? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> // Niclas > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:19 AM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is just Uncle Bob being reactionary. What else is new? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 14:28 Kevin A. McGrail < > [email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yeah just bringing it for others to loop in. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 15:26 Sally Khudairi <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Quite a bit of activity about this on Twitter yesterday... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - - - > >>>>>>>>>> Vice President Marketing & Publicity > >>>>>>>>>> Vice President Sponsor Relations > >>>>>>>>>> The Apache Software Foundation > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tel +1 617 921 8656 | [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 15:18, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cleancoder.com%2Funcle-bob%2F2019%2F11%2F08%2FOpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin A. McGrail > >>>>>>>>>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation > >>>>>>>>>>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fkmcgrail&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> - 703.798.0171 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
