On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 17:29 Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patricia, > I think our opinions differs because of our internalized starting point; > Yours (I think) is that repulsive behavior has occurred and that the only > way to prove that is that several such cases shows a pattern, where each > individual one is a "one says, the other says...". My starting point is > that I see a path where there is no additional accusers and the accused > hasn't done anything, but that the "victim" seeks "trial by media", and it > will be another "one says, the other says" with a wider public going "no > smoke without fire". > > And as these matters are generally framed in a narrower definition than Law > in general, and that being at the receiving end of a twitter storm can do > as much (or more) harm as a prison sentence, What the fuck, dude. Not cool. I think it is important that a > signal of "false accusations" are not acceptable and will be dealt with as > harassment. > > The "is standing alone" argument is mostly a play on emotions, since there > are plenty of people that rush in to support a victim (real or fabricated), > but the accused perpetrator (real or not) will have no such support, > because no one dares to stand up for such, in the quite likely case it is > real. So, it is in fact the accused that is standing alone, unlike the > murderer who at least gets a defense lawyer regardless of being accused or > outright admitting guilt. > > And then add the vagueness of language regarding "offense" that has risen > lately, and we are in the domain of becoming judge, jury and executioner, > for lawful behavior. For unlawful accusations, it is primarily a matter of > guiding that to the authorities. > > > // Niclas > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:24 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]> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
