Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Ian Jackson]

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude 
emails"):
> It seems like you could act as an individual listmaster who has not
> reviewed things with the rest of the team.  "It's my opinion as an
> individual listmaster that you are violating our code of conduct...
> If you disagree, you can talk to me or the rest of the
> listmasters..."

I think the availability of this approach is essential, for almost
anyone who is in a team which has any kind of authority.  This applies
to everything from the maintainers of an individual package, to the
TC.

> By acting as an individual listmaster, you make it clear that I have a
> path for a second opinion: asking the other listmasters.  But you also
> make it clear that if the community has concerns about the aggregate
> actions of the individual listmasters, we can also take that up with the
> listmasters.
> So, you can send mails  promptly without seeking review, provided the
> other listmasters are OK with that.

Yes.

Ian.

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

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

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Sam Hartman]

> "Don" == Don Armstrong  writes:

Don> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 3) Similar to 2. I don't think you can take off any hats you do
>> have when sending such mails. If you have a role in our account,
>> antiharassment, conduct, listmaster, moderation, or other related
>> processes, you can't really ever give that up when talking to
>> people about conduct. People will hear, and to some large extent
>> should hear your message with the hat, even if you intend it
>> without the hat.
>> 
>> And so, I think you need to take the same level of responsibility
>> and care for anything unofficial that you would for something
>> more official, because it's subject to the same potential for
>> abuse.

Don> Taking care and responsibility is appropriate (and I believe
Don> everyone in these difficult roles does so.)

Don> However, taking the same level of care and responsibility would
Don> necessitate running any message I send by all of the other team
Don> members before sending it.[1] That would mean I'll never point
Don> out sub-optimal behavior until it reaches a level which is bad
Don> enough that it's worth wasting everyone else's time to craft
Don> such a warning. [Usually after multiple complaints.]

So, when you do that, it sounds like you're trying to duck
accountability.
It sounds like you're telling me that if I have a problem with your
actions, I cannot complain about it as an listmaster action.  And yet,
since you are a listmaster, some day you may choose to act as a
listmaster.


And since it has a similar chilling effect on speech, I'm very
uncomfortable with that approach.
If I had to choose between you sending personal warnings that had no
accountability and you only acting after reviewing with the entire rest
of the team, I'd be more comfortable with the project in which you
didn't send the warnings until they rose to the level where the entire
team needed to be involved.
But that seems a false dichotomy to me.

It seems like you could act as an individual listmaster who has not
reviewed things with the rest of the team.
"It's my opinion as an  individual listmaster that you are violating our
code of conduct...  If you disagree, you can talk to me or the rest of
the listmasters..."

By acting as an individual listmaster, you make it clear that I have a
path for a second opinion: asking the other listmasters.  But you also
make it clear that if the community has concerns about the aggregate
actions of the individual listmasters, we can also take that up with the
listmasters.
So, you can send mails  promptly without seeking review, provided the
other listmasters are OK with that.
If they aren't, well, that's a fairly good sign you shouldn't do it as
an individual either.

--Sam

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 3) Similar to 2. I don't think you can take off any hats you do have
> when sending such mails. If you have a role in our account,
> antiharassment, conduct, listmaster, moderation, or other related
> processes, you can't really ever give that up when talking to people
> about conduct. People will hear, and to some large extent should hear
> your message with the hat, even if you intend it without the hat.
>
> And so, I think you need to take the same level of responsibility and
> care for anything unofficial that you would for something more
> official, because it's subject to the same potential for abuse.

Taking care and responsibility is appropriate (and I believe everyone in
these difficult roles does so.)

However, taking the same level of care and responsibility would
necessitate running any message I send by all of the other team members
before sending it.[1] That would mean I'll never point out sub-optimal
behavior until it reaches a level which is bad enough that it's worth
wasting everyone else's time to craft such a warning. [Usually after
multiple complaints.]

Instead, I just Cc: everyone else who is on the role so they know what
I've said, and can act if there's abuse.

1: At least, when I want to speak with my listmaster@ or owner@ hat on,
that's what I do.
-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his
character, give him power.
 -- Abraham Lincoln

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[G. Branden Robinson]

At 2017-10-30T17:01:43-0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I don't think you can take off any hats you do have when sending such
> mails.  If you have a role in our account, antiharassment, conduct,
> listmaster, moderation, or other related processes, you can't really
> ever give that up when talking to people about conduct.  People will
> hear, and to some large extent should hear your message with the hat,
> even if you intend it without the hat.  And so, I think you need to
> take the same level of responsibility and care for anything unofficial
> that you would for something more official, because it's subject to
> the same potential for abuse.

Here's what it looks like when one argues that that's not the case:

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/judge-will-not-limit-bergdahl-s-sentence-over-trump-comments-1.495257

-- 
Regards,
Branden


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Sam Hartman]

> "Chris" == Chris Lamb  writes:


Chris> However, I do not believe one needs standing to do so and
Chris> would highly encourage people to call out behaviour they feel
Chris> is unacceptable, whoever they are or whatever flags they have
Chris> in the Debian LDAP server.

Chris> Indeed, this is probably more effective at changing the
Chris> culture as it does not involve a paternalistic/authoritarian
Chris> "telling off". Thoughts?

In general, I think this is great.
I have a few fbits of advice I'd offer:

1) I'd recommend being extra careful that such mails are clear,
respectful and compassionate.  Clearly explain what behavior you hope
will change, why that would be valuable.  Talk about the behavior on
content not about the person.

2) Especially when there's area for disagreement make it clear what
position you have in the project.  Hi, I'm the DAM, and THIS MUST STOP
NOW requires a different approach if you think the request to change is
unreasonable than hi I'm a user and I hope everyone in the project
THINKS THIS MUST STOP NOW.

3) Similar to 2.  I don't think you can take off any hats you do have
when sending such mails.  If you have a role in our account,
antiharassment, conduct, listmaster, moderation, or other related
processes, you can't really ever give that up when talking to people
about conduct.  People will hear, and to some large extent should hear
your message with the hat, even if you intend it without the hat.  And
so, I think you need to take the same level of responsibility and care
for anything unofficial that you would for something more official,
because it's subject to the same potential for abuse.

--Sam

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Laura Arjona Reina]

El 25 de octubre de 2017 22:52:43 CEST, Ian Jackson 
 escribió:
>In the last week or so I have sent two mails to Debian contributors
>saying to them that I felt their message was rude or otherwise had
>inappropriate elements.
>
>Normally when I do this I get a reply saying "sorry, that's not what I
>meant" or "you are right and I was angry, I have written to XYZ to
>clarify/apologise" or some such.  (Indeed as someone who sometimes
>finds it difficult to maintain an even keel about things I feel
>strongly about, I have received such messages myself and generally
>tried to use them to become a better person etc.)
>
>However, in the last two cases I the contributors I complained to have
>said they disagree.  I won't quote their words.
>
>How serious does an issue have to be, or how persistent the
>misbehaviour, before I should forward the question to someone ?
>

IMO for the a-h team, it's not related to seriousness, since it's not an 
escalation. 

A-H members may help actors to voice their opinion in a more calm tone and to 
remind people to stay civilized. 

Some people don't mind to do this themselves (thanks!), others make an effort 
and do it because they feel it's important (thanks!) but others feel shy or 
unempowered. A-H can try to help anybody who cares about the good environment 
in our community (being friendly and helpful to each other).


>Personally I don't often get the impression that listmaster@ welcome
>complaints about what might be seen as mild misbehaviour.  And if I
>see someone being rude directly to another contributor, but CC'd to
>the public, it feels odd to be reporting that to the antiharassment
>team.  

Why odd? We don't track every list or may have backlog to read.

> Do I need to have standing ?

No. You care about the community and their members, that is enough.


Now, all this said, please note that:

* we (antiharassment) are a very small team that needs to grow and renew (for 
the situation of the members and for the characteristics of the task). 
Sometimes we are very slow. Sometimes dialog does not work and we end up 
escalating (leader, dam).
* trying to solve/deescalate things in good will, without reporting to a-h, is 
also ok. It shouldn't be assumed that "since there was no report to a-h, there 
was no issue or it was not serious".

Best regards


Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Martín,

> In situations like those Ian has described, I think DAM and
> anti-harrassment should at least be informed. 

I didn't mean to imply that one should do one or the other; clearly, some
kind of judgement call is required and I was only attempting to lower the
bar in milder cases where contacting AH would be premature.


Regards,

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

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Martín Ferrari]

On 25/10/17 18:36, Chris Lamb wrote:

> However, I do not believe one needs standing to do so and would highly
> encourage people to call out behaviour they feel is unacceptable, whoever
> they are or whatever flags they have in the Debian LDAP server.
> 
> Indeed, this is probably more effective at changing the culture as it does
> not involve a paternalistic/authoritarian "telling off". Thoughts?

As I said many times in the past couple of years, peer pressure is not
enough sometimes, and the project needs teeth to stop harmful behaviour
before it drives people away.

*The volunteers are the project's most valuable resource, and we need to
protect them.*

In situations like those Ian has described, I think DAM and
anti-harrassment should at least be informed. Coincidentally, yesterday
I was about to do exactly this after I saw some inflammatory emails sent
publicly to a member of our community.

I am adding them to this thread, as I think their input on the matter
would be most welcomed.

Tincho.

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

Re: Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Ian,

> In the last week or so I have sent two mails to Debian contributors
> saying to them that I felt their message was rude or otherwise had
> inappropriate elements.

Since becoming DPL I have sent a number of these with varying degrees
of "success".

However, I do not believe one needs standing to do so and would highly
encourage people to call out behaviour they feel is unacceptable, whoever
they are or whatever flags they have in the Debian LDAP server.

Indeed, this is probably more effective at changing the culture as it does
not involve a paternalistic/authoritarian "telling off". Thoughts?


Regards,

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

Appropriate escalation (or non-escalation) re rude emails

[Ian Jackson]

In the last week or so I have sent two mails to Debian contributors
saying to them that I felt their message was rude or otherwise had
inappropriate elements.

Normally when I do this I get a reply saying "sorry, that's not what I
meant" or "you are right and I was angry, I have written to XYZ to
clarify/apologise" or some such.  (Indeed as someone who sometimes
finds it difficult to maintain an even keel about things I feel
strongly about, I have received such messages myself and generally
tried to use them to become a better person etc.)

However, in the last two cases I the contributors I complained to have
said they disagree.  I won't quote their words.

How serious does an issue have to be, or how persistent the
misbehaviour, before I should forward the question to someone ?

Personally I don't often get the impression that listmaster@ welcome
complaints about what might be seen as mild misbehaviour.  And if I
see someone being rude directly to another contributor, but CC'd to
the public, it feels odd to be reporting that to the antiharassment
team.  Do I need to have standing ?

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

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