Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Some private discussion with Thomas made me understand why he felt ill-at-ease with my email, and I do think it requires a clarification, as I actually screwed up my phrasing. I wrote Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 22:58:08+0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit¬: > As you seem perfectly aware of, bringing Adolf Hitler or nazism in a > public conversation on -project as a (maybe caricatural) way of > comparison is not good. Apologizing, is a good thing, but trying to > explain oneself in such a situation is doing yourself and your apologies > wrong. >• > Not because one can't explain themselves at any time, but because it > makes your apologies look like a pretense to justify what you said instead > of making your apologies look like sincere ones. Especially when the > issue lies on a touchy thing like references to the Holocaust. The second paragraph is misphrased. While it aims at reminding that some people could believe that "apologies + explaination = no apology + explaination", and could feel that such excuses are not sincere, I personally do believe that this was not the case here and thus believe that your apologies were sincere. I'm sorry that my mistake may have led you to feel otherwise here. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:37:48AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: Scott, I think we both agree that the reaction to the apology was unnecessarily harsh, but this: > I feel like you are intentionally twisting my words, is not helping. > but I will assume good > faith and work on the assumption that I'm wrong and we are just communicating > poorly. If you want to assume good faith, the "intentionally" rhethoric up there is superfluous. I'm taking this off-list (Pierre-Elliott proposed that, and I think he's right: this thread is already a monster thread and bound to do more harm than good). My wish - assume good intentions on all sides - do really assume good intentions. Cheers & over -- tomás signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
On Friday, April 17, 2020 5:07:04 AM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 18:39:06-0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > > When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't > > get to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project > > member (or list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to > > improve the tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the > > power of your delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act > > special weight. > Let me quote myself: > > > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that > > > we > > > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will > > > consider > > > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter > > > continue. > > As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of > our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist. > > You seem to forget that it's already what we did before being delegated, > and, if that could make you more comfortable, my email to this list > wouldn't have been different from a single bit if we weren't delegated. That was before the team had specific boundaries to it's role defined. They've been defined now. The team should respect them and I do not believe you are. > Actually, the other members of the CT can confirm that, but I was the > one pressing that we would not need a delegation, and that if we did > intend to be delegated, I was expecting no power from this delegation, > and no specific rights to get someone out of any part of the project > apart from the rights we have as standard Developers or members of these > parts of the project. > > I actually stand by my point, and I would not be fine with having any > specific leverage on any core team (DAM, Listmasters, DSA or other). To > me this team's leverage is words, and the trust we'll build with these > core teams, nothing more. Delegation isn't just about what you can do as a team. It also sets the boundaries of the team's scope. As far as the words go, I think it's pretty horrible to jump in after a thread is over and publicly shame someone for doing the apology wrong. > > While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the > > delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC > > do get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more > > equal than others. > > Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it > respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy > that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you > could have thought that I was going out of line. No. We don't agree at all. You can't have it both ways. Either since you said you were acting as a team member, you were claiming a special role (inappropriately so in my opinion) or you have no special role (which is what you claimed) It can't be both. I was probably being to subtle in my language. Here's a more direct explanation so it won't be missed: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/all-animals-are-equal--but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others > > It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd > > have had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, > > but not enough for me to question it. > > I'm quite concerned that you could think that a member of the Community > Team is going overboard when asking people to not continue discussing > about Hitler additions in a conversation on a list, because he would > need to be a listmaster to do so. I feel like you are intentionally twisting my words, but I will assume good faith and work on the assumption that I'm wrong and we are just communicating poorly. My objection has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. My objection has to do with the Community Team exceeding it's delegation when it's less than 48 hours old. I've already said, I don't think it takes a listmaster. Anyone can do it. My objection is you claiming that since you're a member of a team with no delegated powers you have a special power. The overboard part is that the email you were replying to was an apology for being out of line. The writer had already recognized that they'd made a mistake. While the apology may not have been the best one ever constructed, the situation was over. You would have been perfectly in line in my opinion if you had done two things differently: 1. Left out the bit about your authority as a member of the community team. 2. Replied to the original message, not the apology. > > As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm > > required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member > > there are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this > > close to just dumping everything else because it's too draining. >
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:47:36AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > - If someone obviously apologizes in public, by all means, >take his/her word for it. Yeah, people lie sometimes (I >know *I* do), but don't assume a lie unless you have >strong evidence for it Hi Tomás I found it great that the Community team reminded that the best apologies are brief and do not get into explanations. I think that it does not question the honesty of the apology. Learning to apologise is actually difficult (we do not want more opportunities to train, don't we), and I think that we also should learn that there is nothing wrong in receiving such advice, even in public like here. Have a nice week-end, Charles -- Charles Plessy Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le vendredi 17 avril 2020 à 11:47:36+0200, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it > > respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy > > that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you > > could have thought that I was going out of line. > > I do have an issue with the tone you chose. Actually I'm a bit > horrified by it. In a situation which seemed to be on the way > to deescalation, you chose a tone which contributed to escalation > (I'm not assuming intention, but I see the effects). It escalated because some people have doubts regarding the CT and its delegation, not because of the topic itself. Regarding the current state of the subthread, it's unclear whether it was descalating, and as we got some demands to help, we did think that sending an email was apprioriate here. If you're horrified by my tone, I'm happy to discuss about it, either there, or, preferably (as this subsubthread is becoming longer that it should have) in private, via the commun...@debian.org alias. I'd be glad to understand and find a way to make it less horrifying for the next times, as there will sadly be next times. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:07:04AM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: [...] > As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of > our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist. I have no qualms with you intervening here. I think before you intervended there were enough people around here making clear that the Hitler metaphor was inappropriate. It seems that the poster in question accepted that. Whatever happened in private and behind the scenes I can't assess, so I'll shut up there. My mail address is in the open, I'm willing to listen. [...] > Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it > respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy > that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you > could have thought that I was going out of line. I do have an issue with the tone you chose. Actually I'm a bit horrified by it. In a situation which seemed to be on the way to deescalation, you chose a tone which contributed to escalation (I'm not assuming intention, but I see the effects). Perhaps we can agree on a couple of things, will we? - Hitler is off-topic here. It used to be a meme in Usenet times, but it wasn't a good idea then and we're glad we don't need that - If someone obviously apologizes in public, by all means, take his/her word for it. Yeah, people lie sometimes (I know *I* do), but don't assume a lie unless you have strong evidence for it Thanks & cheers -- tomás signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 18:39:06-0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't > get > to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project member (or > list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to improve the > tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the power of your > delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act special weight. Let me quote myself: > > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we > > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider > > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter > > continue. As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist. You seem to forget that it's already what we did before being delegated, and, if that could make you more comfortable, my email to this list wouldn't have been different from a single bit if we weren't delegated. Actually, the other members of the CT can confirm that, but I was the one pressing that we would not need a delegation, and that if we did intend to be delegated, I was expecting no power from this delegation, and no specific rights to get someone out of any part of the project apart from the rights we have as standard Developers or members of these parts of the project. I actually stand by my point, and I would not be fine with having any specific leverage on any core team (DAM, Listmasters, DSA or other). To me this team's leverage is words, and the trust we'll build with these core teams, nothing more. > While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the > delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC do > get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more equal > than > others. Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you could have thought that I was going out of line. > It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd > have > had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, but not > enough for me to question it. I'm quite concerned that you could think that a member of the Community Team is going overboard when asking people to not continue discussing about Hitler additions in a conversation on a list, because he would need to be a listmaster to do so. > As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm > required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member > there > are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this close to just > dumping everything else because it's too draining. I'm sorry if you feel the requirement for social interactions as a draining thing, and I would really like to have some solutions to offer you about that, but I have no real clue about how to help. Yet I don't think that seeing some people trying to have a saner community and better discussions on public lists should be draining at all. If it is, I'm sorry, and I'd be happy to discuss with you about how we could do the same job in a manner that would make you more confortable. I hope that you understand why I sent this initial email, why I stand by it, and why it's important. And of course, should the listmasters think that the way we acted is excessive, we'd be glad to speak with them about that, and to have them define the frame in which we should act on lists. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:22:32 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le 16 avril 2020 23:17:46 GMT+02:00, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > >On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >... > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately > >(on > >> your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this > >> subthread. > > > >Sigh. > > > >To quote from the recent DPL delegation for your team: > >> * To work with teams responsible for communications channels within > >> the community such as listmasters, the owner of the Bug Tracking > >> System, administrators of Debian Planet and others to provide > >> advice; where desired by these teams, helping to deal with > >> contentious and difficult issues that impact the community. > > > >and > > > >> This delegation grants no explicit power to the Community Team to > >> enforce decisions; the power granted by this delegation is advisory. > >> However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose > >> and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. > >> As an example, at the time of this delegation, some community team > >> members are involved in list moderation. Within the rules > > > >established > > > >> by listmaster for the use of this moderation power, it is appropriate > >> for community team members to use such power in furtherance of the > >> Community Team mission. > > > >Are you a listmaster? According to > >https://www.debian.org/intro/organization > >you are not. Assuming that's the case, I think you're out of line. If > > > >there's a problem on a Debian list, it's the listmaster's role to > >address it. > >I'm further assuming that if the listmasters had asked the Community > >Team to > >take an active role in policing Debian lists, they would have mentioned > >it. > > > >I've been skeptical about this delegation, but come on! Can't you even > >last > >two days without going outside your mandate? > > > >Scott K > > I have the feeling that maybe some basic concepts are not clear to you, so > I'll state these here to avoid a rinse and repeat process. > > The Community Team is just a (now delegated) group of Developers where > people know that they can find some advice and that will try to find > solutions to Community Issues, eg by working with other teams when it is > relevant. > > But no one has to be part of a team to ask some things out. Anyone is free > to ask someone to do something, eg not posting anymore about a sadly > remembered historical person on a list. You are free to ask, I'm free to > ask, even a listmaster is free to ask. > > What I can't do is force someone to not post anymore on a list, and I'm > currently not doing so. And, indeed, only a listmaster (or list moderators, > as it became a thing now) can and I'd rather keep it that way. > > What I'm doing here is asking someone to stop posting about something, and > I'm not crossing any line by doing that, otherwise this line has been so > much crossed in the past years it doesn't exist anymore. > > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter > continue. > > In some way it's a bit like when you see someone in the but putting his > shoes on the seat in front of them. You don't wait to feel entitled by > being a transportation officer to ask nicely the person to remove thein > feet from the seat. > > Because we are a community of people, we have a right to expect others to > understand what we ask of them without being some sort of police officer. > > With best regards, When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't get to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project member (or list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to improve the tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the power of your delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act special weight. While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC do get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more equal than others. It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd have had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, but not enough for me to question it. As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member there are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this close to just dumping everything else because it's too draining. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le 16 avril 2020 23:17:46 GMT+02:00, Scott Kitterman a écrit : >On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >... >> Hi, >> >> I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately >(on >> your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this >> subthread. > >Sigh. > >To quote from the recent DPL delegation for your team: > >> * To work with teams responsible for communications channels within >> the community such as listmasters, the owner of the Bug Tracking >> System, administrators of Debian Planet and others to provide >> advice; where desired by these teams, helping to deal with >> contentious and difficult issues that impact the community. > >and > >> This delegation grants no explicit power to the Community Team to >> enforce decisions; the power granted by this delegation is advisory. >> However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose >> and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. >> As an example, at the time of this delegation, some community team >> members are involved in list moderation. Within the rules >established >> by listmaster for the use of this moderation power, it is appropriate >> for community team members to use such power in furtherance of the >> Community Team mission. > >Are you a listmaster? According to >https://www.debian.org/intro/organization >you are not. Assuming that's the case, I think you're out of line. If > >there's a problem on a Debian list, it's the listmaster's role to >address it. >I'm further assuming that if the listmasters had asked the Community >Team to >take an active role in policing Debian lists, they would have mentioned >it. > >I've been skeptical about this delegation, but come on! Can't you even >last >two days without going outside your mandate? > >Scott K I have the feeling that maybe some basic concepts are not clear to you, so I'll state these here to avoid a rinse and repeat process. The Community Team is just a (now delegated) group of Developers where people know that they can find some advice and that will try to find solutions to Community Issues, eg by working with other teams when it is relevant. But no one has to be part of a team to ask some things out. Anyone is free to ask someone to do something, eg not posting anymore about a sadly remembered historical person on a list. You are free to ask, I'm free to ask, even a listmaster is free to ask. What I can't do is force someone to not post anymore on a list, and I'm currently not doing so. And, indeed, only a listmaster (or list moderators, as it became a thing now) can and I'd rather keep it that way. What I'm doing here is asking someone to stop posting about something, and I'm not crossing any line by doing that, otherwise this line has been so much crossed in the past years it doesn't exist anymore. What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter continue. In some way it's a bit like when you see someone in the but putting his shoes on the seat in front of them. You don't wait to feel entitled by being a transportation officer to ask nicely the person to remove thein feet from the seat. Because we are a community of people, we have a right to expect others to understand what we ask of them without being some sort of police officer. With best regards, -- PEB (from my phone)
