Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 02:34:00PM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > Hello! > > Karsten Merker: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote: > >> > 4. NM Committee review > -- > The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the > matter in > private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not > an > inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision. > >>> I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what exactly is meant > >>> by "[The members of the NMC] are expected not to solicit further > >>> input" - does that mean that the members of the NMC are not > >>> allowed to ask questions about facts outside/above those > >>> explicitly presented by DAM and those contained in the written > >>> appealer statement, i.e. the NMC members are forbidden to do any > >>> sort of research about the situation on their own? If yes, that > >>> would seem like an inappropriate limitation to me. > >> > >> As written, it is not an inquiry. But a check of the decision > >> that DAMs have made. NMC should not need to dig around for > >> long. And should not be forced by someone claiming "but if you > >> only ask this one more, or this one, then you MAY see the > >> light". Nah. Its both sides giving their views, and the NMC > >> deciding on that. End. If one side can not present enough to > >> support their case, then their case fails, it shouldn't be up > >> to the NMC to dig out the stuff for them. > > > > That point would be perfectly valid if DAM would not be part of > > the NMC and would not take part in the discussions, so that the > > NMC members would only decide on the written statements from both > > sides. This isn't the case here, though. DAM is part of the > > NMC, takes part in the discussions and can (and probably will, > > because that's just natural in such a situation) provide further > > input from their viewpoint based on how the discussion proceeds, > > but that's (for obvious reasons) not the case for the appealer, > > It is written in the initial proposal that DAM is excluded from this > vote. Maybe they should also be excluded from discussion within the NMC > explicitly. Would that solve the issues you raised? It was always our intention that DAM does not have any part in or view of the NMC discussion or vote. We submit the review to them and we get back a result. End. I have the very highest regard for both Joerg's and Enrico's integrity. I hope that they would say likewise about me. We are trying hard to do the right thing and not the subvertible thing, so please have a little faith that we are not designing this appeals process purely so we can game it in our favour. > > > so this causes an asymmetry in the procedure. Denying the the > > Non-DAM NMC members the right to inquire about things intensifies > > this asymmetry. > > As said elsewhere, the sentence about inquiry needs clarification it seems. It is to focus the committee's attention onto the provided allegations and defence, and keep them from going off on a tangent. A review should not involve further evidence-gathering. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: Censorship in Debian
Miles Fidelman writes: > At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying > Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do, > be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to > observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just > the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense, > at so much, as to be offensive for that. The effect of this maxim is that if you're someone who isn't on the receiving end of a lot of bad language or behaviour (because, for example, you are a white male), then it's easy to say "Oh, I don't mind what people say about me, so no-one else should mind either". You're speaking from a position of relatively high social position. When you say that to someone who is often on the receiving end of abuse (because they're queer, or black, or trans, or a woman), you're saying in effect "if you want to stick around here, you'll have to accept the racist/sexist/homophobic things people say to you - otherwise you're not being liberal in what you accept". ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women and believe them. And I should then help ensure that language that is offensive to women isn't used in Debian - it's not fair on women to have to justify Every. Single. Time. why particular language is offensive or offputting to women. Regards, Matthew [0] WLOG to other minorities -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org
Re: Censorship in Debian
On 1/10/19 3:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the world is doing this all the time. There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a more fundamental problem. It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. Debian is not a locker room. On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by everything? I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/ - a good read. One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended by things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the world to which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people being ‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third world countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to clean water offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad is slightly offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a victim of the greatest injustice known to humankind." That's because the vast, vast majority of people have the residual decency to not open their fat mouths and argue in public that people don't *deserve* to have access to food and clean water, whereas there is a quite high number of assholes who feel no shame at treating someone as less-than on the basis of irrelevant intrinsic characteristics. Well, no. In other settings (a neighborhood list I host), I've seen perfectly reasonable, if a little heated, discussions on immigration policy - in this case on whether our city should pass a sanctuary city ordinance - get completely derailed over someone's use of the term "illegal alien," which now seems to be politically incorrect terminology (and certainly more legally accurate than "undocumented alien" - which seems to be the currently popular term. Discussion of a rather serious issue, got completely derailed over outrage over terminology, along with calls for moderation of a particular person's posts. Given that I'm a firm believer in free speech, particularly when it comes to political discussion - no censorship was imposed. So, you know, take some personal responsibility for things you say that are offensive, and everything'll be ok. At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense, at so much, as to be offensive for that. And, of course, those who seem to be always outraged are the least aware of how uncivil and offensive their behavior is (or least least willing to acknowledge it). You know - kind of like grammar nazis. Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Censorship in Debian
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think > > > > about > > > > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the > > > > world is doing this all the time. > > > There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying > > > before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", > > > or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". > > If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a > > more fundamental problem. > > It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words > > on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. > > Debian is not a locker room. > On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by > everything? > I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: > https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/ > - a good read. > One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended by > things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the world to > which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people being > ‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third world > countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to clean water > offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad is slightly > offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a victim of the > greatest injustice known to humankind." That's because the vast, vast majority of people have the residual decency to not open their fat mouths and argue in public that people don't *deserve* to have access to food and clean water, whereas there is a quite high number of assholes who feel no shame at treating someone as less-than on the basis of irrelevant intrinsic characteristics. So, you know, take some personal responsibility for things you say that are offensive, and everything'll be ok. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
Hello! Karsten Merker: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote: >> 4. NM Committee review -- The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the matter in private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision. >>> I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what exactly is meant >>> by "[The members of the NMC] are expected not to solicit further >>> input" - does that mean that the members of the NMC are not >>> allowed to ask questions about facts outside/above those >>> explicitly presented by DAM and those contained in the written >>> appealer statement, i.e. the NMC members are forbidden to do any >>> sort of research about the situation on their own? If yes, that >>> would seem like an inappropriate limitation to me. >> >> As written, it is not an inquiry. But a check of the decision >> that DAMs have made. NMC should not need to dig around for >> long. And should not be forced by someone claiming "but if you >> only ask this one more, or this one, then you MAY see the >> light". Nah. Its both sides giving their views, and the NMC >> deciding on that. End. If one side can not present enough to >> support their case, then their case fails, it shouldn't be up >> to the NMC to dig out the stuff for them. > > That point would be perfectly valid if DAM would not be part of > the NMC and would not take part in the discussions, so that the > NMC members would only decide on the written statements from both > sides. This isn't the case here, though. DAM is part of the > NMC, takes part in the discussions and can (and probably will, > because that's just natural in such a situation) provide further > input from their viewpoint based on how the discussion proceeds, > but that's (for obvious reasons) not the case for the appealer, It is written in the initial proposal that DAM is excluded from this vote. Maybe they should also be excluded from discussion within the NMC explicitly. Would that solve the issues you raised? > so this causes an asymmetry in the procedure. Denying the the > Non-DAM NMC members the right to inquire about things intensifies > this asymmetry. As said elsewhere, the sentence about inquiry needs clarification it seems. Cheers, Ulrike
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
Hi! Richard Hartmann: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > [...] >> Anthony Towns: > [...] > >>> Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to >>> the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member >>> committee will probably want to maintain good relations with DAM, at >>> least if they want to continue doing new member work. >> >> I cannot see a problem here. The vote of NMC will be secret, so there is >> no way that DAM could know about who voted what. > > [...] > >>> (Another difference between the proposed process and court appeals is >>> that appeals courts can provide detailed opinions as to why the original >>> decision was wrong which helps avoid making the same mistakes in future; >>> this process doesn't really have that feature). >> There could be a _non-mandatory_ reasoning written by the NMC to DAM if >> a decision is overturned. > > Those two are mutually exclusive. > > Assuming best case and that the text is piped through Secretary to > avoid sender addresses: It would be an undue burden for dissenting NMC > members to find each other in a truly secret ballot, let alone have > them write something in a way which ensures DAM can't deduct from the > style of writing, points raised, and timing who's among the set of > people. Add that everyone in that group would know how many dissenting > votes there were so you even know how many dissenters you would need > to find. Correct! Thanks for making it clear :) Cheers! u.
Re: Censorship in Debian
On 1/10/19 12:00 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the world is doing this all the time. There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a more fundamental problem. It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. Debian is not a locker room. On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by everything? [...] That would be whenever people started complaining about "political correctness" when they were criticised for what they said. No. That's "fragility," or just plain belligerent obtuseness. Then again, as a friend recently commented, "people who go out of their way to take offense at this or that are exceptionally annoying, but it is those who go out of their way to take offense ON BEHALF of someone else who really tick me off." And that really sums up legitimate complaints about "political correctness." If you want to call it 'in bad taste' for this New York Jewboy to call himself a Hebe - you might have a point. Call me anti-semitic, and you're being a politically correct asshole - particularly if you're a WASP. (On the other hand, call me an asshole, and I'll agree with you, maybe even thank you.) There's a really large spectrum from "less than civil" or "insensitive" or "oblivious to nuance" or perhaps, to use an old fashioned word, "boorish" to racist, sexist, etc. But somehow, it seems like all too many people rush right to taking maximum offense and calling for censorship or banning. Personally, I find that highly offensive in its own right. Seems to me that all together too many people have forgotten Postel's law - "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" - which applies just as well to conversation, particularly online, as it does to protocols. (Actually, for protocols, there are some pretty good arguments for being a bit more strict in what you accept. Not so much, for conversations.) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:08:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > With this message we define a way to appeal a DAM action, > > I'm treating this as if it's a first draft and open to comment. > > > 1. Appealing DAM decisions > > -- > > Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may > > appeal the decision. > > Based on the process you describe, I'd suggest phrasing this as "may > ask for the decision to be reviewed by the New Members Committee". > An "appeal" (at least in legal terms) usually goes to the more powerful > body, but in this case, DAM is the more powerful body. > > Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to > the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member > committee will probably want to maintain good relations with DAM, at > least if they want to continue doing new member work. Actually, to the NM committee, "the boss" is frontdesk, not the DAM. There is some overlap between the two (in fact, most DAMs get recruited from the NM frontdesk AIUI), but they're still separate. Having said that, "the boss" doesn't really exist in Debian, apart from the DPL... > > 2. DAM statement > > > > Within 72 hours DAM will provide a statement to the NMC and the appealer > > with their reasoning for the account status change. > > I think by this point DAM should have already provided the reasoning > for the expulsion to -private (or -project if the person being expelled > agreed), so this should be redundant. They might still want to provide a statement explaining some of the more private arguments, though. > > DAM may also send additional material to the NMC only, encrypted to the > > individual members, if they deem it necessary for the case, and if > > presenting this to a wider public might cause issues of confidentiality for > > involved third-parties. > > > [1] The NM-Committee is defined as: > >- All members of DAM and FrontDesk. > >- All application manager that are marked as active and > > processed at least one NM in the last 6 months. > >There is a mail alias which reaches all > > members, it is regularly regenerated by FrontDesk. > > All AMs that have processed an NM in the last 6 months is a fairly > broad group, and not one that's particularly selected for dealing with > particularly sensitive information. On the other hand, having an NM committee which gets selected semi-randomly like that means that the DAM can't really "play" the system as easily. [...no further disagreements...] -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig wrote: [...] > Anthony Towns: [...] > > Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to > > the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member > > committee will probably want to maintain good relations with DAM, at > > least if they want to continue doing new member work. > > I cannot see a problem here. The vote of NMC will be secret, so there is > no way that DAM could know about who voted what. [...] > > (Another difference between the proposed process and court appeals is > > that appeals courts can provide detailed opinions as to why the original > > decision was wrong which helps avoid making the same mistakes in future; > > this process doesn't really have that feature). > There could be a _non-mandatory_ reasoning written by the NMC to DAM if > a decision is overturned. Those two are mutually exclusive. Assuming best case and that the text is piped through Secretary to avoid sender addresses: It would be an undue burden for dissenting NMC members to find each other in a truly secret ballot, let alone have them write something in a way which ensures DAM can't deduct from the style of writing, points raised, and timing who's among the set of people. Add that everyone in that group would know how many dissenting votes there were so you even know how many dissenters you would need to find. Richard
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:46 PM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I don't intend to use devotee for that. I don't think it can > currently handle such votes, nor do I want to spend time > implementing that. I have used CIVS[1] for various projects and for work. It's not very polished, but usually works well. It's Condorcet and you can choose the completion rules, amongst other options. Richard [1] https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:53:38PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: > > > So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote > > > goes, I > > > don't think just deleting that one sentence is it. > > > > I beg to differ :). I have taken a look at Ian's proposal with > > using sqrt(people allowed to vote) instead of a fixed ratio of > > 50%. That doesn't solve the general underlying problem of "not > > voting" generating a bias against the appealer, but it makes such > > a negative effect less likely, so I would consider this at least > > a lot better than a fixed 50% ratio. > > The problem with deleting the sentence is that only 1 person > voting can decide on the result. You really want to have a minimum > of people voting. And once you introduce some kind of quorum, > there is always a (small) advantage for the status quo, but it > assumes they organize themselves to try and take advantage of it. This isn't really correct. With Ian's proposal there is no way to vote tacticly, there is just a minimum amount of people that need to vote, but that's still in the advantage of the status quo. Kurt
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:53:38PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: > > So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote goes, > > I > > don't think just deleting that one sentence is it. > > I beg to differ :). I have taken a look at Ian's proposal with > using sqrt(people allowed to vote) instead of a fixed ratio of > 50%. That doesn't solve the general underlying problem of "not > voting" generating a bias against the appealer, but it makes such > a negative effect less likely, so I would consider this at least > a lot better than a fixed 50% ratio. The problem with deleting the sentence is that only 1 person voting can decide on the result. You really want to have a minimum of people voting. And once you introduce some kind of quorum, there is always a (small) advantage for the status quo, but it assumes they organize themselves to try and take advantage of it. Kurt
