Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[tomas]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:59:21PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

[...]

> And, as I already told too in other mail threads that you are quite
> efficient at interpreting what people wrote to you the worst possible
> way [...]

> Whether it's intentional or not, I'm still wondering, although the
> regular repetition of this pattern tends to make things become clearer.

As a total bystander, I'd humbly suggest that we all strongly assume
it's not intentional. This is IMO the best strategy to de-escalate things

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Felix Lechner  wrote on 21/02/2022 at 19:10:08+0100:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:06 AM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>>
>> Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
>> conflict where there was none.
>
> I think you are blowing it out of proportion. There is no conflict but
> a diversity of opinion.

Actually, you did blow it out of proportion by rephrasing what Russ said
initially and pretending he was telling that you were "very harmful to
the project […]". And from this blow out, two subthreads emerged.

And, as I already told too in other mail threads that you are quite
efficient at interpreting what people wrote to you the worst possible
way (sometimes with this kind of rephrasing), I can't say that I'm
surprised by this.

Whether it's intentional or not, I'm still wondering, although the
regular repetition of this pattern tends to make things become clearer.

Whether you intend or not to use all your education and abilities to try
breaking that pattern, it's of course your call.

Regards,

-- 
PEB


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 4:09:37 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Scott" == Scott Kitterman  writes:
> Scott> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone
> Scott> losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name
> Scott> is like ringing a doorbell with a sledge hammer.
> 
> I strongly agree.  And I understand why it is that you (quite reasonably
> given the information made available to project members) believe that
> has happened.
> 
> As a project,a let's agree we're not going to do that, and let's figure
> out how to build sufficient trust that we can believe in that agreement.

Absent a GR, it's not up to the project.  It's up to DAM.

I don't know how anyone other than DAM can address the question.  If what's 
actually happening is different than what is told to the project members, 
that's not something I have any power to fix.

Scott K

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

Re: What does it mean to be inclusive

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Sam Hartman wrote:
> I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive. However, for 
> me that means something different than you say in your second sentence.  To 
> me that means we've committed to being open to as large a cross section of 
> people--as diverse a cross section of people as possible.

> The difference in how we interpret things is whether we're focused on
the individual or the aggregate affect.

It seems indeed that we may have a different concept of inclusion. For
me, you aren't really being inclusive if you aren't welcoming all
people, not just those who increase a cross section. And you aren't
really welcoming a group if you aren't welcoming every individual
member of that group.

That doesn't mean that Debian should be forced to keep people who
misbehave (don't respect the CoC) or don't align with its core mission
(don't respect the Social Contract). As I see it, that is a completely
different issue.

But this is deviating from the point that I was trying to make, that
is, that Debian can't use the "we are a private group" argument as a
waiver from the (moral, if not legal) obligation to treat people
fairly (and I read your original message as acknowledging the need for
fair treatment, so I thought we were on the same side). So forgive me
if I don't want to go further on this subthread.

Gerardo

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Sam Hartman]

> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman  writes:

Scott> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone
Scott> losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name
Scott> is like ringing a doorbell with a sledge hammer.

I strongly agree.  And I understand why it is that you (quite reasonably
given the information made available to project members) believe that
has happened.

As a project,a let's agree we're not going to do that, and let's figure
out how to build sufficient trust that we can believe in that agreement.

--Sam

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Eldon Koyle]

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:03 PM Scott Kitterman  wrote:
>
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 5:24:47 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Felix" == Felix Lechner  writes:
> > In the interest of full disclosure, I no longer have any affiliation
> > with DAM.
> >
> > Felix> With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has
> > Felix> a long way to go in implementing basic precepts of
> > Felix> justice. For example, it would be good to hold hearings in
> > Felix> which the accused can make a statement before any action is
> > Felix> taken.
> >
> > I think phrasing this in terms of justice and rights for keeping
> >  governments  accountable  is likely to get a knee-jerk reaction from a
> >  number of people who do not want to think of things that.
> > It's fairly clear to a number of us that maintaining standards of a
> > private community is a very different problem than maintaining justice
> > for people who have the power to deny life and liberty.
> >
> > I do think there are standards of fairness and desirable conduct in
> > managing a community, but I don't think going back to the Magna Carta or
> > other documents of human rights is very productive in moving the
> > discussion forward.
> >
> > However, I do find there are areas where I agree with you.
> > I'm going to focus on DAM in this message rather than listmaster or the
> > community team.
> > I think the calculus for each group works out differently.
> > As an example, because the community team cannot (for the most part)
> > take formal action, I think it is desirable to avoid too much process
> > for them.
> >

>
> While it is true that Debian is not a government and has no power to deprive
> someone of life or liberty, it's also not just a social club from which
> expulsion has no real consequences.  For some people, their professional work
> is connected to Debian and being expelled from Debian effectively causes them
> to have to get a new job.  Many Debian Developers have a lot of personal
> identity wrapped up in Debian (myself included).  Being expelled from Debian
> would also be an emotional blow.
>


I believe that the Debian community values fairness.  I also believe that
the community encourages idealism -- it was founded around free-software
ideals, after all.  I think this contributes to some of the arguments we
see: people here want the perfect solution.

I think one of the things we are arguing about here is fairness.  Humans
believe they are acting fairly most of the time; however, there is plenty of
historical and current evidence to the contrary.  I think this is the reason
for pointing to justice system procesess: It is the area where there has
been the most effort expended toward making the process fair (and it's still
far from perfect).  I submit that it is impossible for people to be
perfectly fair, and any process with serious implications should formally
recognize that.

I found a draft from 2019 that I never sent to this list that mostly boils
down to this: it is really easy to misunderstand someone and make a bad
judgement; especially with all of the cultural differences in our community.
As a hopefully innocuous example: there are cultures where commenting on
someone's weight is considered extremely rude and mean, while in other
cultures it is considered a fact and normal to talk about or even call a
person fat.  Would calling someone a fatzo immediately warrant a formal
warning?

I am not on -private, so I'm not entirely sure on the details of what we are
arguing about.  The same thing happened with Daniel Pocock -- I never really
understood exactly what happened to cause him to feel the way he did, just
vague insinuations of misconduct from leadership.  I feel like before
whatever wrong he perceived, he was a relatively normal DD (at least in
public), but I agree that his behavior was completely unacceptable.  I can
say from the interactions on the list that he did not feel heard, which seems
all too common.

I also would like to point out that the project has some non-obvious forces
that could be contributing to the list culture.  Having every interaction
with Debian lists permanently committed to the public record is extremely
intimidating, which may be a source of selection bias for new members (and
also a major hurdle to participation, beyond the strong personalities who
frequent these lists).  I think it also encourages posts only from people
who feel _very_ strongly about what they are posting about, which isn't the
most conducive to constructive discussion.

-- 
Eldon Koyle

Discussion idea for how DAM/CT/etc. could work

[Russ Allbery]

I've been posting a lot on back and forth philosophical discussions, from
which it's probably hard to extract a clear idea of what I'm arguing for.
I've also gotten a few things entirely backwards, and understand a few
things better than before the discussion.  So in the interest of trying to
make all this more concrete and constructive, here's my current mental
idea of what I'd ideally want.

I'm certain this is not implementable as-is and is probably full of
practical problems obvious to the folks who have been doing the work.
This is intended just to make my opinion more concrete.

I'm effectively asking for more intervention, earlier, but milder.  That
means more work, and capacity for work is one of the biggest problems.
That in turn to me implies a large team so that the work can be spread.  I
don't like either the judicial or the employment model; I think the
problem we have looks more like a moderation problem (with the
understanding that it's the sort of moderation problem where moderators
can kick people off entirely if necessary).  I'd therefore look to how
large moderation teams are structured.  I think that would look something
like this:

* A team of at least 12 people, ideally more, whose mandate is to try to
  keep interpersonal interactions in Debian constructive and not abusive.
  Ideally, this would include the moderation functions of owner@bugs,
  listmaster, and IRC ops as well, so that all the project interactions
  are consistently covered by the same rules.

* Within that team, some sort of rotating on-call system so that people
  only have to field problems for some fixed period of time and then can
  step down for a while and only look at appeals.  This is very common in
  large moderation teams to keep people from burning out.

* Whoever is on-call is empowered to warn people their behavior is
  crossing lines without consulting with anyone else and without some big
  process of public review, but such warnings are also not justification
  for further action and are just between the person on-call and the
  person they're warning (although of course the person they're warning
  can choose to make this public if they want to).  This is "hey, that
  wasn't okay, I don't want to start a formal process and I would like to
  forget this ever happened, but I will start a formal process if I have
  to."

* On-call is also empowered to use whatever sort of slow-down or temporary
  pause measures we have available: putting a list topic on slow mode,
  temporarily (like 24 to 48 hours) stopping someone from posting to a
  mailing list (other than debian-vote) or a bug, that sort of thing.
  Whatever non-permanent measures we can come up with to put a heated
  exchange on pause so that people can take a breath and hopefully
  de-escalate.

* Anything more serious, like a formal warning akin to what we have now,
  stopping someone from interacting with a bug more permanently, longer
  restrictions on mailing list posting, or whatever we come up with, needs
  the approval of a three-person panel chosen from the larger group
  (ideally also via rotating on-call).  The goal here is still to stop a
  bad interaction so that we can get back to being constructive, but these
  are things that people have more grounds to be upset about, so having
  the broader sanity check is useful (and if I were on-call, in the
  hypothetical world in which I felt like I had enough emotional energy to
  help, I would be very unwilling to act without having this sort of
  agreement).  I think the panel level is also the right place to handle
  banning someone who isn't affiliated from the project from our mailing
  lists or BTS for bad behavior.

* Appeals, and serious membership actions like expulsion or suspension, go
  to DAM as a whole.  With 12 people that probably will require a vote
  because 12 people is too much for consensus.  For expulsion it probably
  requires a supermajority.  For expulsion we probably want to keep the
  appeal to the NMC.

* Obviously since everyone involved is still a project delegate, the final
  appeal is as always to a GR.

As always, my goal here is to enable people to make more decisions,
faster, with less process, when the consequences are minor and reversible,
and reserve the heavy process for things that are major and irreversible.

One obvious problem is that we need to find at least 12 people to do a
pretty thankless and stressful job.  Hopefully this bounds the level of
work a bit more.

Another obvious problem is that we still have to figure out how to select
those folks.  I think the goal of this group should be to reflect the will
of the project as it currently is, not how we might hope it would be.  I
would be very tempted to use some sort of approval voting for this: anyone
can volunteer and is added if they get a 2:1 majority over the default
option.  But selection, and the cross-section of selection with people who
are willing to do this work, is probably the 

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Marc Haber]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 01:08:42PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone losing their 
> temper and calling someone an unfortunate name is like ringing a doorbell 
> with 
> a sledge hammer.  If that's now the standard for threatening removal, I think 
> it's FAR to low.  This worries me more than it being too hard to make 
> decisions.

THIS. I fully agree with.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany|  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 1:05:04 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> Felix Lechner  writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini  wrote:
> >> Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
> >> there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern
> >> in the way you participate in Debian interactions.
> >> 
> >> Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?
> > 
> > This, too, is a projection.
> > 
> > I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.
> 
> I don't think that's what Enrico is talking about.  I think he's talking
> about the way that you attacked me in response to a message in which I was
> expressing support and sympathy for your position, based on a
> misunderstanding of my message and what looked to me like an assumption of
> bad faith.  This is also not the first time that you've done this to both
> me and others, you have never apologized, and you seem to be intent on
> continuing to do that with me and others at random intervals instead of
> extending a presumption of good faith and trying to find a non-hostile
> reading of other people's words.
> 
> My phrasing doubtless could have been better or clearer.  It always can
> be.  But you can ask questions rather than making assumptions!
> 
> When you do this and then, a few messages later, talk about how you think
> Debian should have a warm and inclusive culture of compromise, it's quite
> frustrating and confusing.  If your goal is to create a warm and inclusive
> culture, please start by not assuming other people are trying to attack
> you.  Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
> conflict where there was none.

Persons in authority demanding public self-shaming and self-criticism isn't 
precisely deescalatory.

I don't think asking someone who's been traumatized by something to act is if 
they were someone who had never experienced the trauma is fair.

If your goal is to run him out of the project, then you all should continue.  
If not, I'd suggest drop it because I don't think anyone is in a particularly 
constructive frame of mind on this point.

Scott K

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

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Russ Allbery]

Felix Lechner  writes:

> Your statement is the opposite of what I felt. In fact, I asked for the
> circumstances to be published on debian-private. It was calming to me,
> so your interpretation is not correct.

Thank you for the correction!  I'm sorry for having misunderstood you.
You'd made other statements about how you received that warning that I
have apparently misinterpreted.

> Finally to my original point, I believe that your conclusions contradict
> mine so frequently because you overlaid your opinion onto mine, i.e
> projected your perception onto mine.

It's certainly possible.  I find it very difficult to understand where
you're coming from, and the only way I have of understanding other people
is through empathy, so I do continue to try to map your reactions to a
model that I can understand in order to try to understand your point.

Regardless, my intent in this conversation is not to talk about your
warning specifically.  That was something you brought up in this
discussion, and I don't feel like this is the place to talk about it nor
is it something I want to dig into.  I'm trying to make a general point
about the impact of the current process, which I think still applies even
if it wasn't relevant in your specific case.

It sounds like you may disagree with my opinion about the process.  Great!
That's part of the discussion.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:06 AM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>
> Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
> conflict where there was none.

I think you are blowing it out of proportion. There is no conflict but
a diversity of opinion.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 12:33:55 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman  writes:
> > The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it
> > is a threat of expulsion.  The minimal possible solution to people
> > feeling threatened would be to not threaten them.  That may not be
> > enough, but that would be a first step.  Focusing on the feeling shifts
> > the blame and buries the lede.
> 
> It's a balance, because if people would always course-correct without
> being told they have to with someone with perceived authority, we would
> not be having this discussion because it wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> I get the impression you think I'm hair-splitting, any communication from
> DAM is inherently a threat, and we should just accept that.  I think it's
> true that any formal communication from someone who can kick people out of
> the project has some level of implied consequences, but I don't think it's
> true that we can't fine-tune the implication.  I think it matters a lot
> whether it's public or private, for example, and whether we explicitly
> raise expulsion or not.
> 
> That said, it is entirely possible that I am being far too optimistic
> about the number of people who are willing to ignore peer feedback but are
> willing to substantially change their behavior when they get DAM feedback.
> Maybe the people who are unwilling to accept feedback unless it comes from
> someone in perceived authority are already too harmful to the project to
> try to spend more time and energy on, and a direct warning of expulsion
> *is* the right way to go about it.  I hope that isn't the case, but I
> admit that it's very worrisome when people won't hear peer feedback and I
> admit I personally don't want to spend a lot of time working with
> aggressively confrontational and draining people in the hope that they'll
> change.
> 
> Regardless, though, I really do not like that we've backed ourselves into
> a corner that involves public shaming (even if it's not intended to be
> that) as part of the process.

I agree with the last point and I think your concerns are fair.

OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone losing their 
temper and calling someone an unfortunate name is like ringing a doorbell with 
a sledge hammer.  If that's now the standard for threatening removal, I think 
it's FAR to low.  This worries me more than it being too hard to make 
decisions.

Scott K


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

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Russ Allbery]

Felix Lechner  writes:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini  wrote:

>> Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
>> there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern
>> in the way you participate in Debian interactions.

>> Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?

> This, too, is a projection.

> I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.

I don't think that's what Enrico is talking about.  I think he's talking
about the way that you attacked me in response to a message in which I was
expressing support and sympathy for your position, based on a
misunderstanding of my message and what looked to me like an assumption of
bad faith.  This is also not the first time that you've done this to both
me and others, you have never apologized, and you seem to be intent on
continuing to do that with me and others at random intervals instead of
extending a presumption of good faith and trying to find a non-hostile
reading of other people's words.

My phrasing doubtless could have been better or clearer.  It always can
be.  But you can ask questions rather than making assumptions!

When you do this and then, a few messages later, talk about how you think
Debian should have a warm and inclusive culture of compromise, it's quite
frustrating and confusing.  If your goal is to create a warm and inclusive
culture, please start by not assuming other people are trying to attack
you.  Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating
conflict where there was none.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Steve

Thanks for putting together this summary!

I'd like for us to channel our discussions into something that can lead 
to positive actions, and relatively soon, rather than it dragging on too 
long and then fizzing out as it has happened in the past.


Some of the deep dive discussions oh philosophy can be useful for this, 
up to a point, but it would be great to tackle some of the problems we 
have in the community that we already have wide consensus on that it 
needs solving.


Not sure what the best approach to this is, and I'm open to more 
suggestions, but how about we compile a list of major topics/issues, and 
then do some poll to rank them and then take them from the top?


The summary contains so many topics that I think some additional 
focus/steering might help us get better results.


Thoughts?

-Jonathan

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:06 AM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>
> That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.

Thank you for clarifying.

> What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
> you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
> that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and
> probably counterproductive.

Your statement is the opposite of what I felt. In fact, I asked for
the circumstances to be published on debian-private. It was calming to
me, so your interpretation is not correct.

Among the two hundred or so messages about my warning, there were at
least some people in the crowd who expressed empathy. By contrast, DAM
expressed no sympathy whatsoever.

The ensuing discussion on debian-private helped me to understand that
I had indeed tripped on a sensitive subject. I was especially
comforted by the first reaction to the announcement, which included a
reference to a TV series. To this day, I would personally not fault
anyone for calling someone a "freak" but I recognize that our
community's standards are different. I abide by them.

The discussion was anything but counterproductive. It exposed that
other people doing very similar things got off without a DAM warning.
No one ever explained that to me.

Most significantly, the discussion established that justice is a
social good and not the domain of a select few who act as they see
fit. Personally, I believe all disciplinary measures should be public.
Only then can the group truly reach a consensus as to which behavior
warrants punishment, and which does not.

> Exactly.  This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing
> warnings.  The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
> ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion.  I think we're starting
> with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to
> course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly
> attacked.

Just so you know, I felt publicly attacked by Enrico's message just
now. Please note that he presumably had a hand in issuing my warning.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that he might be bothered by an
examination of the same.

> and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely
> well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different
> problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly
> shamed.

Again, as I explained above, this is the exact opposite of how I felt.
A public examination of DAM's actions is the only way to ensure their
proportionality.

Finally to my original point, I believe that your conclusions
contradict mine so frequently because you overlaid your opinion onto
mine, i.e projected your perception onto mine.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Russ Allbery]

Marc Haber  writes:

> But please don't forget that a person vanishing from a heated discussion
> just in a whim creates the feeling of victory in the orht discussion
> parties.

> And I KNOW what I would do as participant of a heated discussion after
> receiving a DAM warning.

I think the way you've framed this captures a lot of what we're struggling
with right now.  Why is victory a desired outcome in discussions?  Why is
victory something we're trying to prevent other people from feeling?  (And
this is not just you, to be clear; I completely recognize the feeling that
you're describing.)  How have we managed to make vanishing from a heated
discussion a bad thing?  Shouldn't it be good to back away from something
that's too heated and let it calm down?

Part of the problem you're getting at, I think, is that we feel like we've
lost the capacity for constructive discussion in some areas, and the
options are either to win a heated discussion or to vanish.  This is a
very bad place to be.  That's a sign of an unhealthy community and an
unhealthy project, and Debian is not going to survive if that's where we
stay.

My goal is to have non-heated discussions and a clear decision-making
process.  If *everyone* stepped away from heated discussions, the heated
discussions would end, and that would be great.  What I think you're
identifying is the worry that one side is going to "win" by default, and
to me the answer to that is to end the heated discussion, but not the
*discussion*.  To ensure there is some explicit decision point that you
will not miss by leaving the uncomfortable and draining discussion that
has gotten too heated.

There are some decisions (although I hope not very many!) where we have a
fundamental disagreement over the path forward and still have to decide,
and some group is going to feel like the project is going in the wrong
direction.  We should try to minimize those, but they exist.  But that
still doesn't mean we need to have a heated discussion.  We can identify
the core points of disagreement, try to narrow them down as much as
possible, and resort to a vote.  That's why I care so much about GR
process; it gives us a way to make a decision that doesn't involve one
group of people yelling down another group of people until they achieve
some sort of victory.  I think those victories are pyrrhic.

Sometimes I'm going to be in the minority in the project on something that
matters to me and I'll have to decide whether to live with that or whether
that means Debian is no longer aligned with my goals.  That's hard to deal
with, but at least if it comes in the form of a clear vote, I'll have
concrete facts to work with.  It can't come in the form of people willing
mailing list arguments by attrition, since then I'll never be convinced
that I really was in the minority as opposed to just being unwilling to
shout loud enough.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Enrico Zini]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 08:51:51AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:29 AM Steve McIntyre  wrote:
> >
> > This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
> > effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow
> > misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.
> 
> Thank you, but despite your condescending tone I retain the right to
> interpret who expresses sympathy for me, and who does not.

Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern in
the way you participate in Debian interactions.

Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini  wrote:
>
> Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when
> there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern in
> the way you participate in Debian interactions.
>
> Is this something you'd acknowledge and would be willing to work on?

This, too, is a projection.

I did not address Steve. He wrote to me.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Russ Allbery]

Scott Kitterman  writes:

> The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it
> is a threat of expulsion.  The minimal possible solution to people
> feeling threatened would be to not threaten them.  That may not be
> enough, but that would be a first step.  Focusing on the feeling shifts
> the blame and buries the lede.

It's a balance, because if people would always course-correct without
being told they have to with someone with perceived authority, we would
not be having this discussion because it wouldn't be necessary.

I get the impression you think I'm hair-splitting, any communication from
DAM is inherently a threat, and we should just accept that.  I think it's
true that any formal communication from someone who can kick people out of
the project has some level of implied consequences, but I don't think it's
true that we can't fine-tune the implication.  I think it matters a lot
whether it's public or private, for example, and whether we explicitly
raise expulsion or not.

That said, it is entirely possible that I am being far too optimistic
about the number of people who are willing to ignore peer feedback but are
willing to substantially change their behavior when they get DAM feedback.
Maybe the people who are unwilling to accept feedback unless it comes from
someone in perceived authority are already too harmful to the project to
try to spend more time and energy on, and a direct warning of expulsion
*is* the right way to go about it.  I hope that isn't the case, but I
admit that it's very worrisome when people won't hear peer feedback and I
admit I personally don't want to spend a lot of time working with
aggressively confrontational and draining people in the hope that they'll
change.

Regardless, though, I really do not like that we've backed ourselves into
a corner that involves public shaming (even if it's not intended to be
that) as part of the process.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Scott Kitterman]

On February 21, 2022 5:02:37 PM UTC, Russ Allbery  wrote:
>Felix Lechner  writes:
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>
>>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen
>>> expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of
>>> thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>>> presumption of future bad behavior.  [...] This bothers me a lot.  I
>>> think this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
>>> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite
>>> counterproductive in attempting to just get someone to shift their
>>> behavior.
>
>> Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
>> because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?
>
>That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.
>
>What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
>you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
>that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and
>probably counterproductive.  In other words, I think your reactions were
>understandable and are evidence that the warning system is not working the
>way that I think that it should because it doesn't provide enough
>psychological space for people to understand it as I think it should be
>intended.
>
>And to be clear I think this is a problem with the tools that we have
>available and the process we're currently using, not with how people are
>trying to use the imperfect tools that we have.
>
>> Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
>> It included this line:
>
>> If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with
>> other people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your
>> membership in the project.
>
>> Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
>> "fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
>> of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>> presumption of future bad behavior."
>
>Exactly.  This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing
>warnings.  The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
>ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion.  I think we're starting
>with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to
>course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly
>attacked, and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely
>well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different
>problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly
>shamed.

The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it is a 
threat of expulsion.  The minimal possible solution to people feeling 
threatened would be to not threaten them.  That may not be enough, but that 
would be a first step.  Focusing on the feeling shifts the blame and buries the 
lede.

Scott K

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Russ Allbery]

Felix Lechner  writes:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery  wrote:

>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen
>> expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of
>> thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>> presumption of future bad behavior.  [...] This bothers me a lot.  I
>> think this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
>> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite
>> counterproductive in attempting to just get someone to shift their
>> behavior.

> Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
> because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?

That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.

What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and
probably counterproductive.  In other words, I think your reactions were
understandable and are evidence that the warning system is not working the
way that I think that it should because it doesn't provide enough
psychological space for people to understand it as I think it should be
intended.

And to be clear I think this is a problem with the tools that we have
available and the process we're currently using, not with how people are
trying to use the imperfect tools that we have.

> Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
> It included this line:

> If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with
> other people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your
> membership in the project.

> Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
> "fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
> of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
> presumption of future bad behavior."

Exactly.  This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing
warnings.  The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion.  I think we're starting
with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to
course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly
attacked, and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely
well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different
problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly
shamed.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:29 AM Steve McIntyre  wrote:
>
> This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
> effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow
> misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.

Thank you, but despite your condescending tone I retain the right to
interpret who expresses sympathy for me, and who does not.

In this discussion, Russ sought to minimize the effect of warnings.
That denied the effect it had on me. It was the opposite of
empathy—and by extension sympathy.

> Either you're playing this up willfully, or you have a genuine problem
> understanding that *not* all such discussions are attacks targeting
> you. Right now I can't tell which is more likely.

I do not appreciate your style here, either. In fact, I find you
excessively personal and intimidating. Please note that you have
occupied many roles in Debian, and continue to occupy a role [1] that
gives you disciplinary power over me.

> Please *stop* and think about what you're saying and doing here.

Thank you, but despite your insinuations of my incompetence, I am
qualified to express a mature and educated perspective.

I am 49-year old married man with a family. In school, had seven years
of Latin, two years of Ancient Greek, won a scholarship from the
German President Richard von Weizsäcker and graduated from Harvard
University. In addition to my business endeavors, I serve in my ninth
year in public service (as a library commissioner). I have lived in
five countries, including China and two years in what might be your
native Britain. Please afford me the same capacity that you grant to
yourself. Thanks!

Kind regards,
Felix Lechner

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Community

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Steve McIntyre]

Felix...

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 07:25:46AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>>
>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen expressed
>> around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of thing, or it
>> starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a presumption of future bad
>> behavior.  [...] This bothers me a lot.  I think
>> this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
>> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite counterproductive
>> in attempting to just get someone to shift their behavior.
>
>Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
>because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?

This is getting worrying. Russ expressed sympathy about the bad
effects that warnings could have on people, and you've somehow
misinterpreted that as a direct attack on you.

Either you're playing this up willfully, or you have a genuine problem
understanding that *not* all such discussions are attacks targeting
you. Right now I can't tell which is more likely.

Please *stop* and think about what you're saying and doing here.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
The two hard things in computing:
 * naming things
 * cache invalidation
 * off-by-one errors  -- Stig Sandbeck Mathisen

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2022/02/21 16:40, Scott Kitterman wrote:

On February 21, 2022 12:56:43 PM UTC, Jonathan Carter  wrote:

On 2022/02/21 14:40, Scott Kitterman wrote:

I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step.  I think we agree.  A 
DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or 
expulsion.  I don't have a problem with this.  What bothers me is trying to 
pretend it's something less that's not a big deal.

By that logic becoming a DD is a potential step in getting suspended or
expelled. It's not the warning that gets people kicked out, it's the
continued poor behaviour. If a person takes their DAM warning (and
likely at that point requests from other DDs) seriously, then it doesn't
have to become a big deal.

No.

It sounds to me like you are claiming that there's no change in the threshold 
for being removed due to the previous warning(s) and that's just not true.


Not at all, but it's different than the disciplinary process that you 
have listed out in your previous mail. In the disciplinary process that 
you listed, one type of warning explicitly escalated to the next one 
which eventually leads to you getting fired. In Debian, we don't have 
such a process laid out. Currently, it might be that one person gets 3 
different warnings for different problems that they resolved and then 
it's never an issue again, and in another case, if someone really 
crosses a bad line, they could be kicked out without a warning all together.


Now, that of course doesn't mean that a DAM warning isn't without 
weight, but it counts a lot less on their CV than their actions that 
would have lead up to it.


-Jonathan

Re: What does it mean to be inclusive

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 7:28 AM Sam Hartman  wrote:
>
> In my model, the bar for excluding an individual, particularly at the
> beginning is very low.
>
> * We expect people to agree to the social contract.
> That's a big exclusion; a lot of people don't care about those
> principles.
>
> * We require people to agree to the CoC; that's another big bar.
>
> * At various levels of involvement  we work to confirm people are
>   willing to follow these things to various degrees.
>
> In effect, we have a bunch of exclusions for making the community more
> welcoming, because over all in aggregate doing that creates a more
> inclusive community.

A community with a low bar for expulsion is not inclusive. It is selective.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>
> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen expressed
> around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of thing, or it
> starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a presumption of future bad
> behavior.  [...] This bothers me a lot.  I think
> this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite counterproductive
> in attempting to just get someone to shift their behavior.

Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?

I think your statement reads like an example of psychological
projection. [1][2] It is a common defense mechanism among people. It
is even in the Talmud. Because it is so widespread in Debian, I tried
to warn about it elsewhere. [3] People in the project also complain
about the hypocrisy from time to time (in general, not yours).

Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
It included this line:

If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with other
people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your membership in the
project.

Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
"fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
presumption of future bad behavior."

Moreover, if anyone was confronted with "excessive shame and anger and
fear" it was not you or anyone else, but I. (This is the projection
part.) There was a long thread of mob justice—the longest on record,
some wrote—on debian-private that had me not sleeping for three or
four days.

I'll add that the DAM warning arrived on the day before Yom Kippur.
[4] The next day was filled with intense self-criticism [5] so the
warning with the threat of expulsion fit right in.

Kind regards,
Felix Lechner

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/projection
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/02/msg00039.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur
[5] https://www.aish.com/h/hh/yom-kippur/guide/Exploring_the_Al-Chet_Prayer.html

Re: What does it mean to be inclusive

[Sam Hartman]

> "Gerardo" == Gerardo Ballabio  writes:
Gerardo> Debian is a community that strives to be open, fair and
Gerardo> inclusive.  That means that we have made a commitment to
Gerardo> welcome everybody and not exclude anyone without good
Gerardo> reasons.

I agree that Debian has committed to being open and inclusive.  However,
for me that means something different than you say in your second
sentence.  To me that means we've committed to being open to as large a
cross section of people--as diverse a cross section of people as
possible.

The difference in how we interpret things is whether we're focused on
the individual or the aggregate affect.
In my model, the bar for excluding an individual, particularly at the
beginning is very low.

* We expect people to agree to the social contract.
That's a big exclusion; a lot of people don't care about those
principles.

* We require people to agree to the CoC; that's another big bar.

* At various levels of involvement  we work to confirm people are
  willing to follow these things to various degrees.

In effect, we have a bunch of exclusions for making the community more
welcoming, because over all in aggregate doing that creates a more
inclusive community.

This is in contrast to having a community where we set the bar for
excluding any given individual as high as possible.

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Scott Kitterman]

On February 21, 2022 12:56:43 PM UTC, Jonathan Carter  wrote:
>On 2022/02/21 14:40, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step.  I think we agree.  
>> A DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or 
>> expulsion.  I don't have a problem with this.  What bothers me is trying to 
>> pretend it's something less that's not a big deal.
>
>By that logic becoming a DD is a potential step in getting suspended or 
>expelled. It's not the warning that gets people kicked out, it's the 
>continued poor behaviour. If a person takes their DAM warning (and 
>likely at that point requests from other DDs) seriously, then it doesn't 
>have to become a big deal.

No.

It sounds to me like you are claiming that there's no change in the threshold 
for being removed due to the previous warning(s) and that's just not true.

Scott K

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2022/02/21 14:40, Scott Kitterman wrote:

I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step.  I think we agree.  A 
DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or 
expulsion.  I don't have a problem with this.  What bothers me is trying to 
pretend it's something less that's not a big deal.


By that logic becoming a DD is a potential step in getting suspended or 
expelled. It's not the warning that gets people kicked out, it's the 
continued poor behaviour. If a person takes their DAM warning (and 
likely at that point requests from other DDs) seriously, then it doesn't 
have to become a big deal.


-Jonathan

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Scott Kitterman]

On February 21, 2022 11:33:07 AM UTC, Jonathan Carter  wrote:
>On 2022/02/21 07:06, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution.
>
>I don't believe that's quite accurate, a DAM warning isn't necessarily 
>meant as a final warning, it's a larger prod for an individual to course 
>correct their behaviour.
>
>If an individual chooses to continue being disrespectful to other people 
>after general requests and then also from one or more formal warnings 
>from DAM, then I have little sympathy for them if they are kicked out of 
>the project after they continue with abusive behaviour.
...

I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step.  I think we agree.  A 
DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or 
expulsion.  I don't have a problem with this.  What bothers me is trying to 
pretend it's something less that's not a big deal.

Scott K

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2022/02/21 07:06, Scott Kitterman wrote:

Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution.


I don't believe that's quite accurate, a DAM warning isn't necessarily 
meant as a final warning, it's a larger prod for an individual to course 
correct their behaviour.


If an individual chooses to continue being disrespectful to other people 
after general requests and then also from one or more formal warnings 
from DAM, then I have little sympathy for them if they are kicked out of 
the project after they continue with abusive behaviour.


The technical issues we take on in Debian is already challenging enough 
that the last thing we need to do is to enable abusive people to stick 
around and hijack our causes and continue to distract from the actual 
issues we collectively care about.


That doesn't mean that there isn't problems to fix, some people have 
expressed concern that concentration of power with DAM is too much, DAM 
themselves have expressed that they have too much responsibility and 
don't want it, and want to focus on account management itself rather 
than having to be responsible for community management in addition to that.


So we do need to discuss and figure out what our ideal community 
processes should look like and who should be responsible for things like 
warnings. Should it be from the community team? A newly formed team? I'm 
against it being a DPL responsibility and it should really be delegated 
to a team instead of just resting on one person.


I 
think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that went:


1.  Verbal warning.
2.  Written warning.
3.  You're fired.


Perhaps that could be used as a starting point. A process needs to be 
fair, but it also needs to be efficient, and the action taken should be 
in line with the offense. If someone, for example, starts issuing death 
threats and starts physically hurting people, we would need to have a 
process available to take quick action.


Also, I do think that people can improve, and I like to think that I've 
improved in many ways even just as a human being since becoming involved 
with free software 20 years ago. I hope that our processes will also 
take that into account and have some leeway for people to grow and 
improve over time, but there is a hard line that gets crossed when 
transgressions get in the way of people doing their work and they feel 
unsafe participating in the community, and when that happens, swift 
action will continue to remain necessary.


-Jonathan

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Marc Haber]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 09:18:15AM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Russ Allbery  wrote on 21/02/2022 at 07:30:48+0100:
> > BTW, also on that front, I think that announcing DAM warnings to the
> > project is a serious mistake.  I understand the thought process that went
> > into that decision, but I really don't agree with it.  The effect is to
> > make someone feel attacked and shamed publicly, which directly interferes
> > with the goal of a warning.  It's also one of the major factors in making
> > people feel like warnings are some sort of permanent black mark against
> > them, which I strongly do not want to be the case.
> 
> I agree. Warnings should be private at first. Some cases could be made
> public if the problem was big enough to be mentioned, but generally I'd
> expect as a random member to not be informed of a warning.

But please don't forget that a person vanishing from a heated discussion
just in a whim creates the feeling of victory in the orht discussion
parties.

And I KNOW what I would do as participant of a heated discussion after
receiving a DAM warning.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany|  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think phrasing this in terms of justice and rights for keeping
 governments  accountable  is likely to get a knee-jerk reaction from a
 number of people who do not want to think of things that.
> It's fairly clear to a number of us that maintaining standards of a
private community is a very different problem than maintaining justice
for people who have the power to deny life and liberty.

I believe that this is a key point to this discussion. We need to
ponder carefully on which point of the scale Debian should place
itself.

On one hand, Debian isn't a government and shouldn't be subject to the
same standards of accountability and due process as someone who has
the power to deny life and liberty.
On the other hand, Debian isn't either a private house where the owner
has the right to decide who gets in and who doesn't without
explanations or with "I just don't like you" as an acceptable
explanation.

Debian is a community that strives to be open, fair and inclusive.
That means that we have made a commitment to welcome everybody and not
exclude anyone without good reasons. That means that the "we're a
private group so we choose whom we want in" argument simply does not
belong here.

So, while I'd agree that talking about the Magna Charta is probably
out of place here, I definitely believe that members of the Debian
community are entitled to a fair hearing before being subject to any
punitive actions. How that hearing should be conducted, how formal it
should be, etc., may be worked out in different ways.

Gerardo

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Russ Allbery wrote:
> We need a careful and slow process for kicking someone out of the project
because that's a big deal.  Having a careful and slow process for issuing
a warning is faintly absurd,

I see your point and to some extent I agree -- but if repeated
warnings then become grounds for being kicked out, that would
effectively sidestep the careful and slow process.

Gerardo

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Russ Allbery  wrote on 21/02/2022 at 07:30:48+0100:
> BTW, also on that front, I think that announcing DAM warnings to the
> project is a serious mistake.  I understand the thought process that went
> into that decision, but I really don't agree with it.  The effect is to
> make someone feel attacked and shamed publicly, which directly interferes
> with the goal of a warning.  It's also one of the major factors in making
> people feel like warnings are some sort of permanent black mark against
> them, which I strongly do not want to be the case.

I agree. Warnings should be private at first. Some cases could be made
public if the problem was big enough to be mentioned, but generally I'd
expect as a random member to not be informed of a warning.

-- 
PEB


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature