Hey Matt, Niclas, While prison is almost certainly worse, we really shouldn't underestimate the negative effects that cyber-mobbing can have. People have lost their livelihoods, and even committed suicide over cyber-mobbing. Social approbation is a really powerful punishment, because we are social animals. It's also true that mobbing (cyber- and real-) is as likely to be directed at "victims" as it is at "villains." Christina Ford for example needed private security after her testimony to Congress.
There are good reasons to keep CoC complaints and outcomes private and they are as much to protect the victims as they are to protect the accused (innocent or otherwise). There are also countries in which it is a legal requirement. For example, in Germany you will never find the names of victims or of people convicted of most crimes in the newspaper. People need the opportunity to rehabilitate, and that includes the opportunity to break from their past deeds: something that is impossible in the US where criminal records are fairly easy to discover with or without consent. It is not appropriate to throw people away for their mistakes and failings. For example: remove RMS from all positions of authority? Sure. Make him homeless? Nope. But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement, so this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the planners@ list. Best, Myrle On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >
