Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[David Margerison]

On 18 April 2018 at 23:08, Lars Wirzenius  wrote:
>
> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
>
> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> name for a team that deals with this.

On 19 April 2018 at 02:17, Ian Jackson  wrote:
>
> This group would:

[snipped] see [0]

On 19 April 2018 at 02:31, Laura Arjona Reina  wrote:
>
> If we want a body that can enforce certain rules, I would go to
> "social committee" (as its analogue "technical committee").
>
> If we want a contact point that gives advice ans ensures that complains
> or a report arrives to the corresponding body (similar to now), my name
> suggestion would be"Anti-harassment and Fair Treatment Contact Office".
>
> I wouldn't drop the anti-harassment word because its negative load raises
> awareness and sends a clear message. I always understood harassment as
> not only sexual, but any (repeated) abuse in power relationships. If
> that's not the common understanding, we may need to add "anti-bullying".

On 19 April 2018 at 20:00, Chris Lamb  wrote:
>
> I would agree that the current name for the Anti-Harrassment team
> is sub-optimal and that names & words are uniquely powerful tools
> at our disposal.
>
> I can think of many historical examples in Debian where they were,
> alas, not given enough consideration at the time.
>
> However, I can't help but feel that we are distracting ourselves
> from the more important and initial questions of what the remit or
> powers of this enhanced/supplemental team might be.
>
> Indeed, the very fact that such "name framing" is so powerful is
> likely to handicap this very discussion (which started at [0]
> AFAICT) in that it can put off people who feel — and I'm uncertain
> how to phrase it here — "de-framed" or otherwise put-off from
> contributing by a suggestion.

> [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/04/msg00024.html

This is an interesting discussion. I waited a while before speaking,
to avoid "handicapping" it. It is not easy to balance uninhibited
discussion of ideas, while also keeping the discussion on-topic.

I am not a Debian insider, but I admire and care deeply about the
Debian project for many years. So I read this thread carefully and
I offer these thoughts ...

In any idealistic project, it is inevitable that there will be conflicting
ideas. Conflict can feel scary, but usually less so if we are not facing
it alone. I suggest it could be an improvement if Debian can create
*one* general point of contact to assist *all* social issues between
collaborators, before they escalate into harmful discord.

This point of contact could be used by any person seeking to
contact a team capable of providing assistance to interact with any
other person on any matters affecting the project. For example, a
developer seeking assistance to improve collaboration with another
developer. For example, a conference attendee uncomfortable with
the behaviour of others and not knowing how to handle the situation.

The minimum function of this team would be to assist and support
all parties involved with the *process* of reaching a resolution.

Yes "name framing" is powerful and it might inhibit some people
from joining the discussion. On the other hand: naming things
is hard, name discussion is part of a valuable and complex
brainstorming process, a suitable name might encourage people
to join the discussion, and help everyone think more about it.

Also, if this team would be given a name that "de-frames" anyone,
then that would be an unfortunate failure from the beginning :)

The project could consider positive naming words that might be useful,
for example:
co-operation
collaboration
social assistance
social interaction

A combination of postive and anti-negative words might provide the
percieved benefits of both (see quotes above). For example:

The Debian Collaboration & Anti-Harassment Team

And this one team could be reached by use more than one email alias,
for example:
anti-harassment-t...@debian.org
collaboration-t...@debian.org

These are not necessarily my favourite suggestions, rather I offer them
to demonstrate how a suitable name might be created.

Thank you, everyone involved, for all your work on Debian.

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Martín Ferrari]

Well, this conversation that is very important and relevant for me,
reaches me in a bad moment. So expuse my slow replies, please.

On 18/04/18 17:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
>> "Debian emotional support group", maybe.
> 
> I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting.  At
> the very least I need to be much clearer.

I actually think that both your proposal, and the current a-h, serve a
role that can be described as emotional support, and there is nothing
insulting about that.

Emotional support is essential for a healthy community, sometimes just
having somebody to listen to your rant can help a lot towards solving
problems.

I am not saying that we are currently able to do this (no personpower!),
but I find it an important part of such an entity. For years I have been
parroting about the need to take care of Debian's most important assent:
its people. And I believe this is one very important way of doing so.

>> But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
>> what the group is reponsible for.

> This group would:

Except for a couple of things -and to the best of my knowledge- the
anti-harrassment team has been doing what you describe here, I will
comment below on the exceptions.

>by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper
>team would not be expected to make its own enquiries and would
>normally be expected to follow the recommendation.

Currently, the gatekeeper has the final say. I think that for DAM I
agree with Ganneff in that it makes sense it stays like this. Maybe you
could give more powers for less drastic actions, such as temporary bans
on certain media, etc.

>  * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave, how to complain,
>and write down its own processes.

We have a Code of conduct, which goes a long way towards this.

>  * The new group would have a foundational document which would
>explicitly give it authority to do all of the above.

This would be a delegation, I understand.

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:46:03PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> If there would be one clear rule, I´d say: Never ever attack a person. 
> Harmlessness with each other goes a long, long way. 
> 
> Wrongdoing someone who probably did something that did not serve the 
> project or another person, i.e. did something "wrong", just continues 
> the hurting cycle. And even "wrong" or "right" is just an arbitrary 
> judgment. Indeed think "I am right and the other is wrong" is a pattern 
> that fuels threads like the one I think this discussion relates to. Its 
> also a game that can be played till the end of time. Only exit: One 
> party lets go of blaming the other party (as if there would be different 
> parties to begin with but that is another story).
> 
> There is no wrongdoer, there are just human beings or… souls who play 
> the game of human experience.
 
Thanks for writing all of this, Martin. 

I very much agree, even though I too often fail/miss this myself. "Ever tried.
Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."


-- 
cheers,
Holger, with apologies to those I failed to in my life...


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Martin Steigerwald]

Colin Watson - 19.04.18, 01:42:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem
> > that possibly would have to be removed from the project?
> > 
> > If so I heavily disagree with that.
> 
> It's an action the project has had to take a few times before, and
> it's probably worthwhile for that sort of inevitably very stressful
> situation to take advantage of the judgement of several experienced
> mediators (or whatever term we end up with) to decide whether it's in
> fact the right course of action.

I agree that this can be the case.

Like in the countries we live in. There are behaviors that justify 
putting a person into prison at least temporarily to make it impossible 
for the person to do it again.

> > I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior
> > of a person and the person him/herself.
> 
> This is indeed very true and important to keep in mind, but it doesn't
> mean that the project or its members should have to tolerate abusive
> behaviour indefinitely.
> 
> I mean, if your main point is that we should describe the behaviour as
> the problem rather than the person, then that seems like a laudable
> practice.  Just let's not kid ourselves that every situation can be
> resolved without exclusionary measures.

Yes, that was my intention here.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Chris Lamb]

Dear fellow developers,

> > That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:
> 
> What about [..]

I would agree that the current name for the Anti-Harrassment team
is sub-optimal and that names & words are uniquely powerful tools
at our disposal.

I can think of many historical examples in Debian where they were,
alas, not given enough consideration at the time.

However, I can't help but feel that we are distracting ourselves
from the more important and initial questions of what the remit or
powers of this enhanced/supplemental team might be. 

Indeed, the very fact that such "name framing" is so powerful is
likely to handicap this very discussion (which started at [0]
AFAICT) in that it can put off people who feel — and I'm uncertain
how to phrase it here — "de-framed" or otherwise put-off from
contributing by a suggestion.

  [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/04/msg00024.html


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 15011 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:

>  * Where appropriate, recommend action to: DAM, TC, listmaster, IRC
>operators, DPL.  Information about the situation would be provided
>by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper
>team would not be expected to make its own enquiries and would
>normally be expected to follow the recommendation.

Recommend an action, but the gatekeeper is expected to follow will in
practice turn out to be a "they took the decision, the rest must
follow". Not good at all, it basically merges the power of all
gatekeepers into one team.

And from past experience in my roles, multiple times over, I tell you
that the pressure and feelings around the actual "final action" is
nothing good, nothing one wants to give others.

Especially if you take DAM and as such membership in our community of
Developers it gets highly emotional and draining.

So i think there needs to be different ways of going on, depending on
what action. A "don't post on mailing lists for a while", or "please
refrain from uploading package XY", even technically enforced, is way
different to "goodbye DD state, come back in 3 years and we see if you
behave better".

Let this new team make a summary of what the problem is, what they tried
(and maybe how they see it fail) and then invoke "the higher body", but
let that higher body decide on the action. For stuff like list bans or
upload bans that may well be just a "right, do it".

Obviously when that team goes to one of the gatekeepers it is expected
they tried all the usual "easy" actions of trying to solve the problems
at hand already, and the gatekeeper shouldnt redo all of those steps.

-- 
bye, Joerg

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> > name for a team that deals with this.
> 
> That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:

What about def...@debian.org ?

You write to them when you are about to explode and need help to not
explode. Or need help because someone else is going to make you explode.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Colin Watson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem that 
> possibly would have to be removed from the project?
> 
> If so I heavily disagree with that.

It's an action the project has had to take a few times before, and it's
probably worthwhile for that sort of inevitably very stressful situation
to take advantage of the judgement of several experienced mediators (or
whatever term we end up with) to decide whether it's in fact the right
course of action.

Most of the time, of course, there are usually better answers.
Expulsion is no fun for anyone.  But in the past some members of the
project have turned out to be abusive in ways that were exceptionally
serious or persistent or both, and I'm sure it will happen again in the
future, and in such cases it's better to expel them than for everyone
else to suffer their behaviour.

I think I would prefer the final decision for that kind of thing to
remain where it is now, with DAM (though of course that's easy for me to
say from the outside), but since it's usually the most serious step in
an escalating sequence of behaviour, a team whose responsibility it is
to try to resolve and de-escalate conflict and who may well already have
been involved would surely have valuable input.

> I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior of 
> a person and the person him/herself.

This is indeed very true and important to keep in mind, but it doesn't
mean that the project or its members should have to tolerate abusive
behaviour indefinitely.

I mean, if your main point is that we should describe the behaviour as
the problem rather than the person, then that seems like a laudable
practice.  Just let's not kid ourselves that every situation can be
resolved without exclusionary measures.

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Tincho,

> Currently, it can only give recommendations, but it is not void

Mm, but just to be 100% clear, the team could naturally be granted
additional powers — we need not consider the status quo to be the
permanent state of affairs.

(It could also be renamed too but as you can see from elsewhere in
this thread, that is... problematic.)


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Martin Steigerwald]

Ian Jackson - 18.04.18, 19:23:
> The answer is, carrot: advertising that the alternative route has a
> possibility of delivering something like what an angry person actually
> thinks they want - punishment for the wrongdoer.
> 
> And, of course, stick: if you post to d-devel anyway then your own
> behaviour will be scrutinised by that some body, and will be
> officially looked on unfavourably (rather than just get you dogpiled).

Whoa. I do not believe in any of that.

Public shaming and/or other forms of punishment is not going to help 
here. The other way around: One of the threads I think this discussion 
relates to is full with shaming and blaming each other… with the result 
of that clearly visible: at least one package maintainer orphaning 
packages and probably even leaving the project.

If there would be one clear rule, I´d say: Never ever attack a person. 
Harmlessness with each other goes a long, long way. 

Wrongdoing someone who probably did something that did not serve the 
project or another person, i.e. did something "wrong", just continues 
the hurting cycle. And even "wrong" or "right" is just an arbitrary 
judgment. Indeed think "I am right and the other is wrong" is a pattern 
that fuels threads like the one I think this discussion relates to. Its 
also a game that can be played till the end of time. Only exit: One 
party lets go of blaming the other party (as if there would be different 
parties to begin with but that is another story).

There is no wrongdoer, there are just human beings or… souls who play 
the game of human experience.

-- 
Martin

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Martin Steigerwald]

Ian Jackson - 18.04.18, 18:17:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > "Debian emotional support group", maybe.
> 
> I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting.  At
> the very least I need to be much clearer.
> 
> > But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
> > what the group is reponsible for.
> 
> This group would:
> 
>  * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian
>contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person.

general comment: Your suggestions go way beyond of what I think is 
appropriate.

>  * Resolution might include simply informal discussions and
>reconciliation.  It might involve formal apologies, usually private
> but perhaps public.  It might involve preventative measures (intended
> to limit the damage done); punative disciplinary measures (intended
> to deter); and exclusionary disciplinary measures (intended to remove
> a problem from the community or part of it). It might involve a

Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem that 
possibly would have to be removed from the project?

If so I heavily disagree with that.

I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior of 
a person and the person him/herself. In discussions on mailing list as 
well as for any team that deals with mediation and emotional support 
(without the notion that emotional support for a person means something 
bad or negative about the person who receives the support).

> formal transfer of one or more forms of authority held by some of the
> disputants.
[…]
-- 
Martin

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Martin Steigerwald]

Lars Wirzenius - 18.04.18, 15:08:
> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> > I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with
> > these issues.
> 
> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> 
> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> name for a team that deals with this.

I think what would be beneficial here is more along the lines of 
mediation.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Ian Jackson]

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people
> involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to
> debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever
> prevent that friction.

Indeed.  My point of view arises from considering what might induce
such people to try a different approach.

The answer is, carrot: advertising that the alternative route has a
possibility of delivering something like what an angry person actually
thinks they want - punishment for the wrongdoer.

And, of course, stick: if you post to d-devel anyway then your own
behaviour will be scrutinised by that some body, and will be
officially looked on unfavourably (rather than just get you dogpiled).

I'm going to let other people drive this conversation for a while.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Laura Arjona Reina]

El 18 de abril de 2018 17:59:38 CEST, Gunnar Wolf  escribió:
>Lars Wirzenius dijo [Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:08:24PM +0300]:
>> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>> > I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with
>these
>> > issues.
>> 
>> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
>> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
>> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
>> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
>> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
>> 
>> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
>> name for a team that deals with this.
>
>This topic was brought up at the A-H BoF in Montreal. Everybody thinks
>A-H's name is wrong for many reasons, but no better-suited name has
>yet been suggested; in my view, A-H is far from being a team only to
>deal with harassment (which would make it mostly, although not purely,
>a sexism-prevention-oriented group), but should be able to work in
>"hard" social interactions such as what sparked this set of threads.
>

If we want a body that can enforce certain rules, I would go to "social 
committee" (as its analogue "technical committee").

If we want a contact point that gives advice ans ensures that complains or a 
report arrives to the corresponding body (similar to now),  my name suggestion 
would be"Anti-harassment and Fair Treatment Contact Office".

I wouldn't drop the anti-harassment word because its negative load raises 
awareness and sends a clear message. I always understood harassment as not only 
sexual, but any (repeated) abuse in power relationships. If that's not the 
common understanding, we may need to add "anti-bullying".

>But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people
>involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to
>debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever
>prevent that friction.

+1
Or at least I would like that the conversation goes at a slower pace. To leave 
ourselves (all of us) time to think, calm down, listen and empathycise.

My 2 cents.

-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
Sent with K-9 mail

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Lars Wirzenius]

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 17:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > "Debian emotional support group", maybe.
> 
> I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting.  At
> the very least I need to be much clearer.

Insulting? *sigh*

> This group would:
> 
>  * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian
>contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person.

You're seem to be talking about something entirely different than what I had in 
mind. You're also proposing something that I find patronising
and sorely lacking in oversight.
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:17:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This group would:
>  * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave
[...]
>  * The new group would have a foundational document which would
>explicitly give it authority to do all of the above.
 
this would be horrible. we are *diverse* project, from all kinds of
backgrounds. thought- or behaviour police is evil, or imperialistic at
best.

I know you meant this well the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[gregor herrmann]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:55:03 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:

> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 15:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> > > name for a team that deals with this.
> > That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:
> "Debian emotional support group", maybe.
> But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
> what the group is reponsible for.

Ack. I think that's the main point.

It seems that we're having this discussion every second year,
roughly, which seems to indicate that we need "something". And it
seems to me that what we're struggling with is to define what this
"something" really is.

I found Ian's brainstorming about possible names in the previous
email quite instructive because the names and his comments on them
show the spectrum of possible "somethings" quite well:

Are we looking for a court which rules on violations of rules; a
counseling body for contributors who want to get advice in unpleasant
situations; a mediating/conflict management instituation for helping
multiple parties who have a controversy; etc.? IOW: Are we looking for
"judges", "psychologists", "social workers", etc.?

Or: As Lars said (and I extend, if I may): What should the
responsibilities, tasks, and powers of such a team be?

Ian explained his ideas ("disputes/conflict", "promote healing",
"disciplinary mechanism/decisions") in his thread starter. Maybe we
can go back there and try to find a common view before thinking about
existing insitutions, names for the new one, etc.


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Jerry Lee Lewis: Big Legged Woman


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Ian Jackson]

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> "Debian emotional support group", maybe.

I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting.  At
the very least I need to be much clearer.

> But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
> what the group is reponsible for.

This group would:

 * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian
   contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person.

   Bad behaviour includes but is not limited to: harassment; exceeding
   any form of authority (eg, package hijack); persistent or severe
   rudeness; blocking others' work without reasonable justification
   and adequate communication.

 * Handle matters in private (except in very exceptional cases).

 * Where appropriate, facilitate, mediate and/or conciliate, in the
   hope that the problem can be resolved by better communication.

 * Where appropriate, make judgements about the behaviour of relevant
   parties, and express those judgements to the parties in the hope of
   influencing them.

 * Where appropriate, recommend action to: DAM, TC, listmaster, IRC
   operators, DPL.  Information about the situation would be provided
   by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper
   team would not be expected to make its own enquiries and would
   normally be expected to follow the recommendation.

 * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave, how to complain,
   and write down its own processes.

 * Resolution might include simply informal discussions and
   reconciliation.  It might involve formal apologies, usually private
   but perhaps public.  It might involve preventative measures
   (intended to limit the damage done); punative disciplinary measures
   (intended to deter); and exclusionary disciplinary measures
   (intended to remove a problem from the community or part of it).
   It might involve a formal transfer of one or more forms of
   authority held by some of the disputants.

 * The new group would have a foundational document which would
   explicitly give it authority to do all of the above.

 * All of the above is without prejudice to the continuing rights of
   listmaster and other forum operators to take action when they think
   it appropriate.

 * Where the dispute includes a technical question about the behaviour
   of software, the dispute team would firstly try to get people to be
   able to discuss it constructively.  If that failed to produce
   agreement, the disputes team would say who was the person whose
   decision it was.

   If the other side wish they may refer the technical question to the
   TC.  The behaviour of the participants during the TC conversdation
   would be monitored by the disputes group and if necessary the
   disputes group would be able to have the discussion suspended or
   some participant(s) blocked.

Ian.

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 2. You are suggesting mediation.  

Yes. It has been my experience that many of the occasional flareups in
Debian have at their root a failure of communication between one or more
parties which has been escalated instead of mediated.

> Mediation is certainly *one* part of what is needed, but also
> *conciliation* and *arbitration*.

I don't expect the adversarial process to resolve our occasional
breakdowns in communication. At most it will produce winners and losers.


-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

It was said that life was cheap in Ankh-Morpork. This was, of course,
completely wrong. Life was often very expensive; you could get death
for free.
 -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p25

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Gunnar Wolf]

Lars Wirzenius dijo [Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:08:24PM +0300]:
> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> > I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
> > issues.
> 
> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> 
> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> name for a team that deals with this.

This topic was brought up at the A-H BoF in Montreal. Everybody thinks
A-H's name is wrong for many reasons, but no better-suited name has
yet been suggested; in my view, A-H is far from being a team only to
deal with harassment (which would make it mostly, although not purely,
a sexism-prevention-oriented group), but should be able to work in
"hard" social interactions such as what sparked this set of threads.

But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people
involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to
debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever
prevent that friction.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline, name

[Geert Stappers]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:56:41AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> >>Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> >>to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> >>happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> >>offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> >>any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> >>
> >>This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> >>name for a team that deals with this.
> >
> >That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:
> >
> >all @debian.org
> >  trouble too vague, also negative
> >  behaviour   seems somehow hostile, also vague
> >  conduct seems somehow hostile, also vague
> >  appeals too strongly advertises judicial function
> >  arbitration too strongly advertises judicial function
> >  upset   can minimise and subjectify bad actions
> >  conflictvery negative
> >  resolution  too vague but at least positive
> >  reconciliation  not attractive to complaints who want action
> >  dispute[s]  maybe?
> 
> mediation?
> 

elders   used by  tribes,  group of elder/older, because their exprience
counsel  as counselor Deanna Troi from Star Trek  Next Generation


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Leven en laten leven

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Michael Stone]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):

Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".

This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
name for a team that deals with this.


That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:

all @debian.org
  trouble too vague, also negative
  behaviour   seems somehow hostile, also vague
  conduct seems somehow hostile, also vague
  appeals too strongly advertises judicial function
  arbitration too strongly advertises judicial function
  upset   can minimise and subjectify bad actions
  conflictvery negative
  resolution  too vague but at least positive
  reconciliation  not attractive to complaints who want action
  dispute[s]  maybe?


mediation?

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Lars Wirzenius]

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 15:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> > 
> > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> > name for a team that deals with this.
> 
> That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:

"Debian emotional support group", maybe.

But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of
what the group is reponsible for.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Ian Jackson]

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
> 
> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> name for a team that deals with this.

That's certainly true.  I thought of these ideas:

 all @debian.org
   trouble too vague, also negative
   behaviour   seems somehow hostile, also vague
   conduct seems somehow hostile, also vague
   appeals too strongly advertises judicial function
   arbitration too strongly advertises judicial function
   upset   can minimise and subjectify bad actions
   conflictvery negative
   resolution  too vague but at least positive
   reconciliation  not attractive to complaints who want action
   dispute[s]  maybe?

Ian.

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 4/18/18, Cindy-Sue Causey  wrote:
> On 4/18/18, Lars Wirzenius  wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>>> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
>>> issues.
>>
>> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
>> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
>> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
>> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
>> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
>>
>> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
>> name for a team that deals with this.
>
>
> What about turning to a thesaurus? That's helped me A LOT along the
> way in #Life. :)

< yada-yada snipped for brevity >

>> So I tried an "employee bonding" search. That landed a few things that
> may or may not be of interest relative to this topic. "Team building'
> was another phrase that presented itself. Both appeared to be
> something that might could be tweaked to apply to an international
> group of volunteers living in a far more stressful World than we had
> in the 90s.. :)


Something else just occurred to me. Our ages play a part in how we
communicate, maybe particularly about how we are able to sympathize,
possibly even empathize with the feelings and opinions of others.

That came to mind because I was just reading something yesterday about
some very young programmers who were so capable that they caught the
eye of the government. :D

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 4/18/18, Lars Wirzenius  wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
>> issues.
>
> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".
>
> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> name for a team that deals with this.


What about turning to a thesaurus? That's helped me A LOT along the
way in #Life. :)

Also, my memory is foggy so this next might not end up applicable, but
there was a catch phrase that was all over the business world in the
late 90s. My memory is that the concept was about understanding each
other and learning to interpret each individual's... I don't know...
point of view, I guess.

Whatever it was, it was so involved that we ended with two or three
inch thick notebooks full of things about it when it was over. The
thing about something like that is it does take the willingness of all
involved to make it work.

Again, I could really be remembering wrong, but the feeling left all
these years later was that it was all about bonding toward one goal in
spite of very obvious, understandable, acceptable differences.

So I tried an "employee bonding" search. That landed a few things that
may or may not be of interest relative to this topic. "Team building'
was another phrase that presented itself. Both appeared to be
something that might could be tweaked to apply to an international
group of volunteers living in a far more stressful World than we had
in the 90s.. :)

And my apologies if that topic has already long ago been addressed somehow.. :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Lars Wirzenius]

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
> issues.

Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was
offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve
any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?".

This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
name for a team that deals with this.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Martín Ferrari]

Hey, I have not been able to contribute properly to this thread so far,
for personal issues, but I would like to leave my 5¢.

On 18/04/18 12:49, Ian Jackson wrote:

> 6. You mention `anti-harassment' as a `lever of power" but of course
>anti-harassment have no inherent authority.
> 
> IMO the antiharassment team's members would be a good starting point
> for the members of my proposed new structure.  But the new structure
> needs to relate entirely differently to our existing institutions.

Since a few days ago, I am part of that team. I can say that I have been
thinking for a long while about a-h and its (lack of) powers, although I
still don't know what would be best for the future.

I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
issues. Currently, it can only give recommendations, but it is not void;
and I think it will be natural that the liaison with DAM, mailing list
operators, etc will only get stronger with time.

> I wonder if I should propose a GR.  That would provide a way of
> testing whether my ideas (which do seem controversial) are more widely
> held, and also if the GR passes, give clear legitimacy to the new
> team.

Dunno if we are at the point where a GR would be useful yet.

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Ian Jackson]

Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet
> > another contact point?
> 
> Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a
> pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps
> with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was
> involved?]
> 
> Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the
> existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if
> escalation was required.

There are several things wrong with this suggestion IMO:

1. It depends on the DPL selecting a suitable delegate for each
   incoming enquiry.  At best, with a standing panel, this is makework
   and an opportunity for things to get dropped.  At worst it is
   another way for an escalation of bad behaviour to be blocked.

2. You are suggesting mediation.  Mediation is certainly *one* part of
   what is needed, but also *conciliation* and *arbitration*.
   Generally I am not a fan of mediation because it does not look at
   the rights and wrongs behind an issue; so it reinforces the
   existing power structures.

3. Complaintants should not be expected to repeatedly explain/justify
   their views to a succession of different
   teams/officeholders/whatever.

4. Your proposed people seem to lack real authority; and also public
   legitimacy.  The lack of authority/legitimacy is a problem because
   (i) awkard disputants will just say the appointee is wrong
   (ii) if escalation is required, see (3).

5. Each individual dispute should be dealt with by more than one
   person.  Because otherwise escalation to enforcement action will
   inevitably have to violate (3), since there are some serious steps
   which might be necessary for which a single person's recommendation
   would be clearly insufficient; and even for less serious steps,
   collective rather than individual judgement is probably better.

6. You mention `anti-harassment' as a `lever of power" but of course
   anti-harassment have no inherent authority.

IMO the antiharassment team's members would be a good starting point
for the members of my proposed new structure.  But the new structure
needs to relate entirely differently to our existing institutions.

I wonder if I should propose a GR.  That would provide a way of
testing whether my ideas (which do seem controversial) are more widely
held, and also if the GR passes, give clear legitimacy to the new
team.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Ian Jackson]

Chris Lamb  writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> Hi Gunnar et al.,
> > [Ian:]
> > > An effective, reliable and unified disciplinary mechanism
> [..]
> > Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially
> > cover the case.
> 
> I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making
> the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that
> could be part of the problem.

Yes.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Chris Lamb  dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:12:26PM +0100]:
> > I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making
> > the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that
> > could be part of the problem.
> 
> But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet
> another contact point?

Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a
pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps
with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was
involved?]

Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the
existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if
escalation was required.

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the
class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.
 -- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §21

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Gunnar Wolf]

Chris Lamb  dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:12:26PM +0100]:
> > FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current
> > level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation.
> (...)
> This is made even more tragic in that I do not believe this is
> representative of what being a Debian Developer actually entails or
> requires.

FWIW, I agree with this. Said discussions are really nocive and far
from what we need.

> > > An effective, reliable and unified disciplinary mechanism
> [..]
> > Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially
> > cover the case.
> 
> I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making
> the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that
> could be part of the problem.

But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet
another contact point? 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Gunnar et al.,

> FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current
> level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation.

I'm reluctant to jump so quickly to a meta dicussion but I think we
underestimate the subtle effects of such discussions. In particular
how they subconsciously (and conciously) affect the mindset of *non*
combatants.

Imagine, for example, a relative newcomer to the Project being
linked to the threads in question. At the very best, it would
hardly encourage them to contribute more.

This is made even more tragic in that I do not believe this is
representative of what being a Debian Developer actually entails or
requires.

> > An effective, reliable and unified disciplinary mechanism
[..]
> Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially
> cover the case.

I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making
the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that
could be part of the problem.


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Gunnar Wolf]

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 01:39:07PM +0100]:
> We desperately need:

FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current
level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation.

>  * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling,
>that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1].
> 
>  * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that
>(i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is
>feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult
>people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able
>to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do
>things here.

Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially
cover the case. You mention in your footnotes a body that makes
recommendations that would be followed by DAM, TC or whoever.

It depends on the case at hand, but I'd say this is covered by the TC,
DAM, the anti-harassment team, the DPL (who is not burdened by this as
a single individual but as one of the potential points of contact),
specific teams that cover the different aspects of the project (say,
the ftpmasters, or the DebConf committee, or whatnot).

I believe the problem that sparked your message are the recent threads
(in d-devel, in d-private) that show conflict between Debian
contributors. However, part of the problem might be they are threads
started off... Mails. We could have said to any of those, "please
shut up here, solve your interaction issue by talking with __" -
But the threads have already started. People would keep replying to
them even if mediation was "abducted" to a specialized group.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Ian Jackson]

Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> On 2018-04-17 14:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We desperately need:
> > 
> >  * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling,
> >that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1].
> > 
> >  * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that
> >(i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is
> >feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult
> >people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able
> >to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do
> >things here.
> 
> +1!

I should say that I am volunteering, in the event that anyone
considers me suitable to be part of such a thing.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Conflict escalation and discipline

[Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)]

On 2018-04-17 14:39, Ian Jackson wrote:

We desperately need:

 * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling,
   that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1].

 * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that
   (i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is
   feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult
   people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able
   to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do
   things here.


+1!

-Jonathan

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  xmpp:j...@debian.org ring:highvoltage