To be more specific here, comparing prisoners to people who got banned from a conference is preposterous. Prisoners by definition have limited personal freedoms far in excess of someone being bullied on Twitter. Please have some perspective.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 10:15, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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]> -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
