Re: Censorship in Debian

[Sam Hartman]

Might I suggest that Miles and the rest of us have had as much of a
meeting of minds as we can in the media of email and that this thread
has drifted into noise?  In my oopinion continuing would do more harm
than good.

--Sam

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/11/19 8:28 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:


Miles Fidelman  writes:


On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:

...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
and believe them.


It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go
way over the top.  It's quite another to have star-chamber like
censorship & banning.  And even more for you (a male) to take action
on their behalf.  It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some)
women's complaints about offensive language, while not listening to
other women's complaints about "white knight" behavior.

A couple of things (which might as well have come after the following
paragraph, but I'm trying to keep this concise):

i) you appear to be arguing that as a man I shouldn't speak out on
feminist topics, shouldn't take action on behalf of women. This line of
argument was run when we had the weboob argument, and Miry commented on
why she doesn't often join in such arguments[0] - from which it's clear
that "no woman has complained about this particular thing" doesn't mean
that thing is inoffensive. The geek feminism wiki has an article on this
subject:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman

ii) "White Knighting" has a specific meaning in this context, which I
don't think you mean to accuse me of?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/White_knighting



You, specifically:  I am not familiar enough with you, or your writings, 
to make such an accusation.


An awful lot of calls for censorship - here and elsewhere - yes.

Regards,

Miles


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> No.  I may mind, but I sure don't want others minding on my behalf.  I
> find THAT offensive.

Then I won't do that for you.

But I'm sure you realize that your experience is not universal among all
of humanity, and some people *do* want other people minding on their
behalf in some situations, mostly because they're exhausted, sick to death
of having to fight this battle, and/or much more likely to get abuse and
harassment if they do speak up than I am.

I will continue to emphasize the voices of those people and push for
things that they care about in places where I'm fairly sure that's what
they want because that's what members of a community do for each other.
Hell, that's what *friends* do for each other.  They have each other's
backs.

If a friend of mine cares about something that impacts them personally,
that means that I probably should at least consider whether I should care
about it too.  For me, this is a core part of the *definition* of
friendship.  If I don't give a shit about things that hurt my friends, I'm
not much of a friend, am I?

Obviously, it's then on me to be *really* good at listening, and to not
jump into places where I'm *not* wanted.  And obviously it's not
completely blind; sometimes a friend is going to be hurt by something, and
on reflection I'm going to decide that whatever they were hurt by wasn't
out of line.  It's tricky.  I'm going to mess up occasionally and have to
readjust.  But that's okay; it's still a lot less tricky than having to
deal with constant harassment every time you express an opinion.  I'm
happy to do some of my part in supporting my friends.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Matthew Vernon]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>
>> ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
>> accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
>> want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
>> get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
>> and believe them.
>
>
> It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go
> way over the top.  It's quite another to have star-chamber like
> censorship & banning.  And even more for you (a male) to take action
> on their behalf.  It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some)
> women's complaints about offensive language, while not listening to
> other women's complaints about "white knight" behavior.

A couple of things (which might as well have come after the following
paragraph, but I'm trying to keep this concise):

i) you appear to be arguing that as a man I shouldn't speak out on
feminist topics, shouldn't take action on behalf of women. This line of
argument was run when we had the weboob argument, and Miry commented on
why she doesn't often join in such arguments[0] - from which it's clear
that "no woman has complained about this particular thing" doesn't mean
that thing is inoffensive. The geek feminism wiki has an article on this
subject: 
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman

ii) "White Knighting" has a specific meaning in this context, which I
don't think you mean to accuse me of?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/White_knighting

Regards,

Matthew

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00364.html
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:

Miles Fidelman  writes:


At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just
the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense,
at so much, as to be offensive for that.

The effect of this maxim is that if you're someone who isn't on the
receiving end of a lot of bad language or behaviour (because, for
example, you are a white male),


White JEWISH male, who's grandparents all came from Eastern Europe - 
we've been on the receiving end of LOTS of bad language & behavior.  
(And it seems to be coming back.)


Also, grew up in the 60s - not a good time to look Jewish, and have long 
hair (well, a bushy Jewfro) when traveling in large parts of the 
country.  ("Long haired hippy freak" could get you killed.)


And then, it wasn't always "age of the geek."



then it's easy to say "Oh, I don't mind
what people say about me, so no-one else should mind either". You're
speaking from a position of relatively high social position. When you
say that to someone who is often on the receiving end of abuse (because
they're queer, or black, or trans, or a woman), you're saying in effect
"if you want to stick around here, you'll have to accept the
racist/sexist/homophobic things people say to you - otherwise you're not
being liberal in what you accept".


No.  I may mind, but I sure don't want others minding on my behalf.  I 
find THAT offensive.


To keep it personal, I mind if someone calls me a "Jewboy" or a "Hebe" 
(unless, of course, it's me, or some other NY Jewboy - then it's just 
fine - I'm proud of being a "New York Jew," and a Yankees fan, now 
living in Red Sox Nation).


I appreciate it you don't use that kind of language, and more if you 
don't think that way, but I can fight my own battles thank you very much 
- I sure don't appreciate someone censoring discussion on my behalf.  
(Cops stopping violence, laws against broad-based discrimination, 
programs that balance the scales and redress previous grievances are one 
thing - but I'm with the ACLU on on speech, demonstrations, and so 
forth, or, as Lewis Brandeis put it, in a famous Supreme Court Decision, 
is "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" - 
though, strangely, in an opinion CONCURRING with suppression of speech).


I'm saying that there's a point at which one gives back as good as one 
gets, rather than crying for others to protect one's sensibilities.  And 
I sure don't want folks stepping in, who don't have a dog in the fight.


I don't want wannabee nazis (you know, the morons who march around in 
polo shirts, carrying tiki torches, chanting "Jews will not replace us," 
and generally making good targets of themselves) complaining about 
Internet censorship.  I want them afraid to rally, running home to 
momma, because they're afraid of the "scary liberals."  And maybe, just 
maybe, learning something from the experience.  (Have you noticed how 
few "free speech rallies" we've had lately?)




...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
and believe them.



It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go way 
over the top.  It's quite another to have star-chamber like censorship & 
banning.  And even more for you (a male) to take action on their 
behalf.  It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some) women's 
complaints about offensive language, while not listening to other 
women's complaints about "white knight" behavior.




And I should then help ensure that language that is
offensive to women isn't used in Debian - it's not fair on women to have
to justify Every. Single. Time. why particular language is offensive or
offputting to women.



Maybe not.  And good for you to refrain from using such language. But 
who are you (male from your name) to be the one applying defense on 
their behalf - haven't you heard enough complaints about playing "white 
knight?"  Personally, I find it offensive to have privileged people 
whine & complain on behalf of the oppressed.  (Ever notice how often 
it's the white suburbanites who are quickest to take issue with 
"offensive language," preach political correctness, and jump in as 
social justice warriors?  We used to call them "limousine liberals.")  
Frankly, I don't want WASPs advocating against anti-Semitism.  And I 
prefer to either respond in kind, or kill-file people, than to have 
someone else call them out, or censor them in my name, thank you very much.


Censorship & banning are, in themselves, offensive behavior (to me).  
Calling 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Matthew Vernon]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
> Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
> be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
> observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just
> the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense,
> at so much, as to be offensive for that.

The effect of this maxim is that if you're someone who isn't on the
receiving end of a lot of bad language or behaviour (because, for
example, you are a white male), then it's easy to say "Oh, I don't mind
what people say about me, so no-one else should mind either". You're
speaking from a position of relatively high social position. When you
say that to someone who is often on the receiving end of abuse (because
they're queer, or black, or trans, or a woman), you're saying in effect
"if you want to stick around here, you'll have to accept the
racist/sexist/homophobic things people say to you - otherwise you're not
being liberal in what you accept".

...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
and believe them. And I should then help ensure that language that is
offensive to women isn't used in Debian - it's not fair on women to have
to justify Every. Single. Time. why particular language is offensive or
offputting to women.

Regards,

Matthew

[0] WLOG to other minorities
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/10/19 3:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:


On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:

Anthony Towns wrote:

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
world is doing this all the time.

There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".

If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
more fundamental problem.
It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.
Debian is not a locker room.

On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by
everything?
I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: 
https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/
- a good read.
One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended by
things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the world to
which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people being
‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third world
countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to clean water
offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad is slightly
offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a victim of the
greatest injustice known to humankind."

That's because the vast, vast majority of people have the residual decency
to not open their fat mouths and argue in public that people don't *deserve*
to have access to food and clean water, whereas there is a quite high number
of assholes who feel no shame at treating someone as less-than on the basis
of irrelevant intrinsic characteristics.



Well, no.  In other settings (a neighborhood list I host), I've seen 
perfectly reasonable, if a little heated, discussions on immigration 
policy - in this case on whether our city should pass a sanctuary city 
ordinance - get completely derailed over someone's use of the term 
"illegal alien," which now seems to be politically incorrect terminology 
(and certainly more legally accurate than "undocumented alien" - which 
seems to be the currently popular term.  Discussion of a rather serious 
issue, got completely derailed over outrage over terminology, along with 
calls for moderation of a particular person's posts.  Given that I'm a 
firm believer in free speech, particularly when it comes to political 
discussion - no censorship was imposed.



So, you know, take some personal responsibility for things you say that are
offensive, and everything'll be ok.



At the risk of repeating myself:  I'm a firm believer in applying 
Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do, be 
liberal in what you accept from others."  Personally, I try to observe 
both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just the 
opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense, at so 
much, as to be offensive for that.


And, of course, those who seem to be always outraged are the least aware 
of how uncivil and offensive their behavior is (or least least willing 
to acknowledge it).  You know - kind of like grammar nazis.


Miles



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:

> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think 
> > > > about
> > > > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
> > > > world is doing this all the time.
> > > There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
> > > before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
> > > or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".
> > If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
> > more fundamental problem.

> > It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
> > on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.

> > Debian is not a locker room.

> On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by
> everything?

> I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: 
> https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/
> - a good read.

> One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended by
> things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the world to
> which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people being
> ‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third world
> countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to clean water
> offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad is slightly
> offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a victim of the
> greatest injustice known to humankind."

That's because the vast, vast majority of people have the residual decency
to not open their fat mouths and argue in public that people don't *deserve*
to have access to food and clean water, whereas there is a quite high number
of assholes who feel no shame at treating someone as less-than on the basis
of irrelevant intrinsic characteristics.

So, you know, take some personal responsibility for things you say that are
offensive, and everything'll be ok.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/10/19 12:00 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:


On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:


Anthony Towns wrote:

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
world is doing this all the time.

There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".

If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
more fundamental problem.

It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.

Debian is not a locker room.

On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by
everything?

[...]

That would be whenever people started complaining about "political
correctness" when they were criticised for what they said.



No.  That's "fragility," or just plain belligerent obtuseness.

Then again, as a friend recently commented, "people who go out of their 
way to take offense at this or that are exceptionally annoying, but it 
is those who go out of their way to take offense ON BEHALF of someone 
else who really tick me off."  And that really sums up legitimate 
complaints about "political correctness."


If you want to call it 'in bad taste' for this New York Jewboy to call 
himself a Hebe - you might have a point.  Call me anti-semitic, and 
you're being a politically correct asshole - particularly if you're a 
WASP.   (On the other hand, call me an asshole, and I'll agree with you, 
maybe even thank you.)


There's a really large spectrum from "less than civil" or "insensitive" 
or "oblivious to nuance" or perhaps, to use an old fashioned word, 
"boorish" to racist, sexist, etc.  But somehow, it seems like all too 
many people rush right to taking maximum offense and calling for 
censorship or banning.  Personally, I find that highly offensive in its 
own right.


Seems to me that all together too many people have forgotten Postel's 
law - "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept 
from others" - which applies just as well to conversation, particularly 
online, as it does to protocols.  (Actually, for protocols, there are 
some pretty good arguments for being a bit more strict in what you 
accept.  Not so much, for conversations.)


Miles Fidelman




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Ben Hutchings]

On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think 
> > > > about
> > > > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
> > > > world is doing this all the time.
> > > There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
> > > before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
> > > or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".
> > If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
> > more fundamental problem.
> > 
> > It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
> > on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.
> > 
> > Debian is not a locker room.
> 
> On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by 
> everything?
[...]

That would be whenever people started complaining about "political
correctness" when they were criticised for what they said.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.



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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Josh Triplett  writes:

> If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
> more fundamental problem.

> It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
> on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.

Eh... I do think that goes a little far.  It *is* a fundamental life
skill, but there are a lot of fundamental life skills that come harder for
some people than others.

For example, the absolute fastest way to make me miserable is to put me in
a situation where I need to make verbal small-talk with strangers.  In
writing, absolutely, I can do that all day.  In person, I run out of
social energy *really fast*.  I also consider this a fundamental life
skill, and I've gotten better at it, but I am in no way good at it, and am
usually still feeling awkward about mistakes I made in some conversation
five years ago.

My point in those messages was poorly expressed, particularly at first.
It's not to argue that this is *easy* for everyone, just that this is
something we do all have to do.  For some people it's harder than it is
for others, and if someone is trying and working on it and apologizing
when they don't do it well, I'll extend them the benefit of the doubt all
day long.  Where I start drawing boundaries is when that transitions into
not even making an attempt, or arguing that one should get to say whatever
pops into one's head because free speech and the responsibility for
filtering is entirely on the listener.  That just doesn't fly in any human
community I want to be part of.

In other words, intention matters a lot to me.  If someone is trying but
it doesn't come naturally, that's one thing; if someone is being
intentionally provocative and sniping at people because they think it's
enjoyable or funny (and I grew up on-line on Usenet; I've met a *lot* of
those people), well, surprise, people don't put up with that shit nearly
as long as they used to, and that's a *good* thing.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:


Anthony Towns wrote:

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
world is doing this all the time.

There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".

If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
more fundamental problem.

It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.

Debian is not a locker room.



On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by 
everything?


I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: 
https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/ 
- a good read.


One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended 
by things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the 
world to which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people 
being ‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third 
world countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to 
clean water offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad 
is slightly offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a 
victim of the greatest injustice known to humankind."


Miles Fidelman

p.s., Debian is a place where people get work done.  Maybe it is a 
locker room (or more locker room than ivory tower).





--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Josh Triplett]

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
> > world is doing this all the time.
> 
> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".

If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
more fundamental problem.

It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.

Debian is not a locker room.

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Ian Jackson]

Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> Thanks!  It's actually high on my list.  I've been waiting for it to 
> mature just a bit, and it seems to have.  Any observations on how it 
> stacks up for a production server?  Anything else that strikes you as a 
> particularly strong Debian alternative for servers?

I'm not running it myself.  All I've done is had (positive)
interations with Devuan developers and looked and (and borrowed) some
of their source code.  So I'm afraid you'll have to evaluate that for
yourself.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese 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: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> I was watching the discussion on systemd fairly closely.  I could be
> wrong, but very little of the discussions over systemd seemed to reflect
> folks who managed production servers, or kernel developers, or developers
> of key backend software (Apache, MySQL, Postfix, Sympa, ...).

Well, for whatever it's worth, I was managing Debian production servers
during the entire period of that debate (and for about ten years previous
to that).  I was the primary advocate for Stanford running its central
infrastructure on Debian, so I'm familiar with the problems and arguments
for and against using Debian in that sort of environment.  Some of the
other major voices in that debate manage far large production deployments
than I did.

My current employer uses Ubuntu in production, not Debian, for many of the
typical reasons why people use Ubuntu over Debian, but from the
perspective of systemd that's basically the same thing.  Ubuntu went
through essentially the same transition that we did.

I do think distributions have some interesting challenges in the future,
and what our users are asking from us is shifting.  Containers and deep
dependency programming ecosystems are both becoming more common, Go and
Rust take a far different attitude towards how to assemble system
components than C and C++ projects have historically, and cloud
deployments are becoming far more common than hardware deployments for
many of our users.  One of the simultaneously fun and frustrating thing
about this field is that problems are constantly shifting, and new ideas
and new ways of doing things are constantly arising.  Debian certainly
will need to change and explore new and different corners of that, and
feedback from day-to-day users of Debian both inside and outside the
project will be very important to understand how to change.

But, if anything, I think being *more* agile, not less, is where we can
improve the most.  And, of course, always trying to find ways in which we
can have it all at once, where we can: provide a broad and inclusive
platform for making a lot of different choices, so that we don't have to
pick the best choices in advance and over-commit to one way of doing
things.  Which, among other things, calls for init system diversity, and
I'm very glad to see that work continuing (although I personally still
hope that someone will come up with a great init system that has the
highly decoupled properties that people want but that isn't sysvinit with
all of its well-known problems).

I'll stop talking about this here since several folks are saying that we
should keep init systems out of this conversation, and I'm not really
helping.  You just raised some points about the social impact of hard
disagreements, and about how decision-making works in general in Debian,
about which I have strong opinions and really wanted to reply.

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

[OT] distributions without systemd (was: Re: Censorship in Debian)

[Martin Steigerwald]

Miles Fidelman - 08.01.19, 18:16:
> > I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago
> > that
> > I would be writing this, but:
> > 
> > Please consider Devuan as an alternative.  You have probably seen
> > awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but
> > the
> > actual Devuan developers I have dealt with have been lovely, and on
> > a
> > technical level they seem to be doing good work.
> 
> Thanks!  It's actually high on my list.  I've been waiting for it to
> mature just a bit, and it seems to have.  Any observations on how it
> stacks up for a production server?  Anything else that strikes you as
> a particularly strong Debian alternative for servers?  (My short
> list, right now is Gentoo, Funtoo, Devuan, and FreeBSD.  I'd been
> hoping that one of the OpenSolaris derivatives would look solid, but
> it's never really happened.  Hypervisors & failover, and replicated
> storage are also high on my list).

I suggest you take Devuan related questions to the devuan mailing list 
dng¹. 

One may argue whether Debian's systemd decision process was similar to 
what happened now, but discussing distributions and other operating 
systems without systemd is clearly off topic on this thread and also off-
topic on the mailing list. It does not add any value to this discussion 
and clutters the thread with unrelated stuff.

That said, two of my server VMs run Devuan since a few months and I am 
happy so far.

[1] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Miles Fidelman 

> Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of
> the Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become
> too "personalized."

JFTR (since this keeps being brought up, otherwise I'd much rather we
just let this lie): Ian was not chair of the TC at the time.  Bdale was
(and he did not resign, his term expired on December 31st 2015).

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/8/19 8:28 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:

Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):

I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems.  When next I do a
major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than
Debian.  Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been -
I've been waiting and watching to see how different alternatives mature
(along with what direction several key server-side applications, on
which we depend, go).

I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago that
I would be writing this, but:

Please consider Devuan as an alternative.  You have probably seen
awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but the
actual Devuan developers I have dealt with have been lovely, and on a
technical level they seem to be doing good work.



Thanks!  It's actually high on my list.  I've been waiting for it to 
mature just a bit, and it seems to have.  Any observations on how it 
stacks up for a production server?  Anything else that strikes you as a 
particularly strong Debian alternative for servers?  (My short list, 
right now is Gentoo, Funtoo, Devuan, and FreeBSD.  I'd been hoping that 
one of the OpenSolaris derivatives would look solid, but it's never 
really happened.  Hypervisors & failover, and replicated storage are 
also high on my list).


Miles



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Sam Hartman]

> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman  writes:

Scott> On Monday, January 07, 2019 07:06:28 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Miles Fidelman  writes: > On the
>> other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger >
>> base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and
>> debate on > contentious issues.  Global infrastructure, with
>> distributed ownership, > lots of stakeholders, all held together
>> by agreements, with the decision > processes open to pretty much
>> anybody who shows up.  The process puts > pretty much everyone
>> else to shame - with lots to be learned from it.
>> 
>> Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published
>> RFCs and chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian
>> process over IETF process any day, and find your description of
>> the IETF pretty entertaining.  :)
>> 
>> Also, please note that many IETF participants are paid as part of
>> their job to participate in the IETF.  (We keep coming back to
>> that.)  That's true of some Debian contributors as well, of
>> course, but I strongly suspect the percentage is lower.

Scott> Similarly here (also three RFCs, but never chaired a working
Scott> group).

Scott> The IETF rough consensus model is very useful in many
Scott> circumstances.  I've used it successfully in multiple
Scott> settings outside the IETF to great success in both moving
Scott> technical work forward or driving decision making in a closed
Scott> group to closure.  It's not relevant to the problem a group
Scott> like the Debian tech ctte has, however.

Scott> Groups like the tech ctte have a different problem than an
Scott> IETF working group.  They have to make final decisions on
Scott> things that affect the project as a whole, many of which are
Scott> 
Scott> I'll also remind you that the IETF process as a whole is not
Scott> whoever shows up.  IETF working groups and IETF last call are
Scott> open processes.  IESG decision making is not.  You can have
Scott> all the working group consensus you want, if there are
Scott> uncleared discusses against your draft, it's not moving
Scott> forward.  If you want a comparison, the tech ctte is a lot
Scott> more like the IESG than an IETF working group.

I've served on the Debian TC, I've served as an IETF working group
chair, and I've served on the IESG.  I think I have a fairly good handle
on the differences between the IETF and Debian processes.

The IETF process is good for developing a consensus where you want to
focus on technical quality and where you have the right stakeholders as
motivated participants.
It requires a certain familiarity with consensus building to avoid a
number of pitfalls.
IT IS NOT TIME BOUNDED.  It's great for situations where you are more
concerned with the right decision than concerned with a decision within
a particular time line.
There are ways that you can try to control the time the IETF process
takes, and it's even possible to do that if you can get a consensus on
what the timeline is and on the technical tradeoffs that are in scope
to achieve that timeline.

Debian did not meet those conditions for the init system decision by the
time it came to the TC.
Debian had already done a lot of consensus building.  We understood the
scope of the problem, we understood some of the complexities surrounding
having multiple init systems.
TC members did do some additional excellent work curating and
summarizing that knowledge (I was not on the TC at the time but was
following the discussion).

A consensus process would not have achieved the goal shared by most of
the project of having a decision in time for the jessie release.

I am unlikely to contribute to this thread again; like Ian I think
init systems are off topic.

--Sam

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Ian Jackson]

Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems.  When next I do a 
> major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than 
> Debian.  Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been - 
> I've been waiting and watching to see how different alternatives mature 
> (along with what direction several key server-side applications, on 
> which we depend, go).

I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago that
I would be writing this, but:

Please consider Devuan as an alternative.  You have probably seen
awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but the
actual Devuan developers I have dealt with have been lovely, and on a
technical level they seem to be doing good work.

Regards,
Ian.

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Martín Ferrari]

On 05/01/2019 21:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized 
> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but 
> I 
> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the 
> CoC).  Not everyone can be accommodated.  There's broad agreement that 
> someone 
> who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any definition) 
> isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to how far 
> the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns without it 
> getting ridiculous.

Replying in a purely personal fashion here.

For full disclosure, let me say that I belong to a couple of minorities,
while also enjoying the benefits of other important privileges. I
consider myself some kind of social justice advocate, and I profoundly
believe in fostering diversity and protecting the most vulnerable people
in society.

At the same time, I am full aware that being oppressed does not make you
immune from being an asshole. And I also believe that there are people
out there requesting ridiculous accommodations, or even using the goals
of social justice for personal benefit. Myself, I have been on the
receiving end of that kind of people, and so I can completely understand
what you are saying here.

> Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum 
> and maximum height.

Yup. And I would not even be able to be a commercial pilot because of my
eyesight, and many things like that. I think those are reasonable.

> All accommodations have practical limits.  In my reading of the Diversity 
> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be 
> taken in the future.

Yes, but I am not sure this is something that can be codified in a
reasonable and useful way. The alternative is to trust the delegates to
be "reasonable", and elect a DPL that might change them if they are
going in a direction that you find too extreme.

If you think about it, this is how it works in many places in the real
world, with policies slowly shifting to the left or right and the window
of acceptable discourse and policies shift too.


-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Christian Kastner]

On 2019-01-08 11:23, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly states 
>>> that:
>>>
>>> "4. Our priorities are our users and free software
>> …
>>> I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the 
>>> breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality being in 
>>> direct opposition to this principal.
>>
>> I don't agree that those decisions were in direct opposition. There
>> wasn't a single answer that was unanimously in the interests of all
>> users, because all users do not agree on the desired outcome. Not even
>> "init-system-neutrality" as you put it would be unambiguously in the
>> best interests of all users. Clearly you would have preferred a
>> different outcome. You aren't alone: but correspondingly, many users got
>> the answer they wanted, and many others didn't have a dog in the race.
> 
> Differing opinions here.  Somehow, major changes in direction, that go
> against "the Unix way," and have direct impact on both systems
> administration & upstream development, seem not to be in the interests
> of many users.

There are no differing opinions here. Jonathan clearly acknowledged your
position. He then pointed out that other positions existed, and that no
answer unanimously in the interest of all users existed.

You keep arguing as if only your position mattered. All positions were
considered, a decision was made which of these served this interest of
the users best. That's complying with the mandate to prioritize users.

> The systemd rollout just broke too many things.

I doubt that the systemd switch was even noticed by 95% of users and
if, then I'd wager that it was a net positive effect.

-- 
Christian Kastner

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:


On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly 
states that:


"4. Our priorities are our users and free software

…
I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the 
breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality 
being in direct opposition to this principal.


I don't agree that those decisions were in direct opposition. There
wasn't a single answer that was unanimously in the interests of all
users, because all users do not agree on the desired outcome. Not even
"init-system-neutrality" as you put it would be unambiguously in the
best interests of all users. Clearly you would have preferred a
different outcome. You aren't alone: but correspondingly, many users got
the answer they wanted, and many others didn't have a dog in the race.


Differing opinions here.  Somehow, major changes in direction, that go 
against "the Unix way," and have direct impact on both systems 
administration & upstream development, seem not to be in the interests 
of many users.  The systemd rollout just broke too many things.


But I brought this up primarily in context of discussing Debian decision 
processes, and as a rebuttal to a previous statement that effectively 
said only contributor's opinions count - whereas the social contract 
explicitly says that users are a highest priority.





Pretty soon, I expect I'll be migrating.


Honestly I think you're very overdue to go. You've been in the Debian
community for a long time. Long enough that you could have become a
member (non-packaging, voting rights) if you had wanted to. I think
you've made valuable contributions to our project, particularly in some
of your posts to debian-user. But from what I've read from you recently,
I think it would be in your own best interests to move on and establish
yourself in a community more aligned with your beliefs and tastes. You
wouldn't be alone, other long-time valued Debian contributors have done
that in the wake of the init system decision. And in my opinion, your
more recent mailing lists contributions to Debian have not been as
valuable as ones from the past: case in point, this thread. We're raking
over old coals here, and it's not helping you, or Debian.



Well, thanks, I think.

I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems.  When next I do a 
major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than 
Debian.  Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been - 
I've been waiting and watching to see how different alternatives mature 
(along with what direction several key server-side applications, on 
which we depend, go).


Meanwhile, there's no reason not to continue responding to questions, 
where I can add value.


The discussion about the censorship issues, and toxic processes, is one 
that's near and dear to my heart - having been involved in governance of 
various organizations and projects, and working professional on projects 
that involve online decision & deliberation support.


Best,

Miles



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly 
states that:


"4. Our priorities are our users and free software

…
I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the 
breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality 
being in direct opposition to this principal.


I don't agree that those decisions were in direct opposition. There
wasn't a single answer that was unanimously in the interests of all
users, because all users do not agree on the desired outcome. Not even
"init-system-neutrality" as you put it would be unambiguously in the
best interests of all users. Clearly you would have preferred a
different outcome. You aren't alone: but correspondingly, many users got
the answer they wanted, and many others didn't have a dog in the race.


Pretty soon, I expect I'll be migrating.


Honestly I think you're very overdue to go. You've been in the Debian
community for a long time. Long enough that you could have become a
member (non-packaging, voting rights) if you had wanted to. I think
you've made valuable contributions to our project, particularly in some
of your posts to debian-user. But from what I've read from you recently,
I think it would be in your own best interests to move on and establish
yourself in a community more aligned with your beliefs and tastes. You
wouldn't be alone, other long-time valued Debian contributors have done
that in the wake of the init system decision. And in my opinion, your
more recent mailing lists contributions to Debian have not been as
valuable as ones from the past: case in point, this thread. We're raking
over old coals here, and it's not helping you, or Debian.


--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/7/19 11:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:


Miles Fidelman  writes:

On 1/7/19 10:06 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
process any day, and find your description of the IETF pretty
entertaining.  :)

Well yeah, but which "works" better in terms of results? Particularly,
as viewed by those who are impacted by the process?

Oh, Debian, by far.  Debian is massively more productive than the IETF per
unit of effort put in the front end.  Now, some of that is the nature of
standards development, which is inherently hard and much more contentious
than nearly all packaging problems.  But Debian puts far more work out in
the world, faster, than the IETF does relative to the resources invested.



That really depends on what you're measuring.  Somehow, "new release of 
Debian" doesn't seem anywhere on the scale of "keeping global 
infrastructure working properly."  Of course, that involves a lot more 
than just IETF.






That's part of why I'd rather work on Debian Policy than on IETF
standards.  IETF standards are very valuable, but the process redefines
the concept of slow and tedious.  And frequently, if there's no consensus,
nothing happens at all in the IETF for literally years.  (Not that this
nevery happens in Debian *cough*, but it's less common and it's usually
only relatively less important things.)

That's fine, to be clear.  I don't think that's a flaw in the IETF.  The
IETF is trying to do one thing (create general standards for the Internet)
and Debian is trying to do something far, far different and more immediate
(create and maintain a usable operating system that runs on real-world
computers).  Obviously they will be organized differently along the lines
required to achieve those goals.  But the IETF, particularly in recent
years, has increasingly become an industry consortium in which
representatives of companies negotiate with each other over how to
implement interoperable standards for their products.  Not a community of
hobbyists who are building something in large part for the joy of it.


Well, yes, IETF is becoming more of an industry consortium - but I sure 
recognize a lot of the WG directors as names from the old days, who most 
assuredly are motivated by a lot more than a paycheck.  (Though yes, 
most folks in academia, industry, and government do like to get paid.  
And to attend meetings in interesting places on the company dime.)




The IETF is an excellent example of an organization where you largely have
to pay people to get them to participate in it.  There are certainly some
people who participate in IETF working groups for fun, but compared to
Debian I'm fairly sure it's limited.  People largely participate in the
IETF because they're trying to accomplish something specific *outside* the
IETF for which an IETF standard would be useful, or because they're being
paid to do so.  Not, at least to the degree that is the case in Debian,
because participating is *itself* fun and exciting and meaningful.


Pay, yes.  Create something outside of IETF - well, probably true, as 
well - but that something is "The Internet" - which is still, very much 
a work in progress.


Re. Debian - I used to think that the project founders, leaders, and 
core developers saw Debian as something more than a hobby or pet 
project.  These days, I'm not so sure.  Linux (and Linus) certainly went 
from academic project to key piece of software driving much of the 
world's computers – and the kernel development community has organized 
itself with that in mind.  Stallman, and the FSF, always, and still, see 
what they're doing as serving a broader purpose and community.  Debian 
used to present as the serious distribution for serious people (and 
perhaps, as the alternative to Red Hat) - and as a platform on which 
people could, and did depend.  These days, it sure doesn't act that way.


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/7/19 10:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:


Miles Fidelman  writes:


I think you're minimizing the level of investment & commitment it takes
to either use Debian, particularly in production, and even more,
minimizing the efforts of upstream, and kernel, developers upon whom
Debian ultimately depends.

I really don't think I am, particularly since I've also done many of those
things, but I'm also a bit baffled as to why you think that you should get
to decide what I do with my volunteer time when you're not paying me.  I
mean, that's really what this comes down to.  Of *course* the people who
are members of the Debian project have the primary say it what it does.


I am not asserting any right to decide what you do with your volunteer time.

What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly states 
that:


"4. Our priorities are our users and free software

We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software 
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We 
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different 
kinds of computing environments ... "


I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the 
breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality being 
in direct opposition to this principal.


I also suggest that users, and the "free software community" do not have 
a voice in the matter.


As to "Of *course* the people who are members of the Debian project have 
the primary say it what it does."  That does not necessarily follow.  
There are plenty of cases, in purely voluntary organizations, where 
Trustees (elected or otherwise) are expected to represent the interests 
of the broader community, and/or the broader mission of an 
organization.  An awful lot of organizations fail when current office 
holders become to insular and unresponsive.





There are also those who contribute by providing support - e.g.,
answering user questions on Debian lists.

And those people can join the project as voting members so that they can
have a say.  (I would love to see more of that, in fact; it's important to
include people in our community who do other things than package.)


As far as I can tell, the only people who count, in Debian decision
making, are packagers - which strikes me as a rather bizarre case of the
tail wagging the dog.

Seriously, if you want control over something that you use, you have to
put resources into it, whether that is time or money.  You can purchase
something and have the influence of a customer and whatever contract you
can get, or you can put in sweat equity and get a voice that way.  Those
are pretty much your choices, apart from government-controlled projects.
This isn't a very radical concept.


Sure.  But in an environment as convoluted as the FOSS ecosystem, where 
and how one contributes can become pretty indirect.  For example, Debian 
depends rather heavily on the Linux kernel, the gnu tools, hosting by 
the OSU OSL - do they have a seat at the table?  What about people who 
contribute to the MoinMoin wiki, used by the Debian project?



I remain amazed how much the impacts on users, systems administrators,
and upstream developers were dismissed as irrelevant.

You list those things as if they're somehow distinct, when many (most,
probably) Debian Developers are all of those things.


I was watching the discussion on systemd fairly closely.  I could be 
wrong, but very little of the discussions over systemd seemed to reflect 
folks who managed production servers, or kernel developers, or 
developers of key backend software (Apache, MySQL, Postfix, Sympa, ...).





On a larger note, I point to the IETF as an example of a much larger
community, running huge infrastructure, where pretty much anyone who
shows up has a voice.

Do you know how the IETF funding model works, and how the Debian funding
model works?  You do know that the parent organization of the IETF has
paid employees, right?


Yes.  Yes I do.  I also know that that ISOC was created, nominally as a 
membership organization, but no more, to create a home for the IETF 
outside of the US Government.  It's the IETF secretariat, or whatever 
it's called these days, that mostly has paid staff.  And... so?




The IETF is a lot more like the Linux Foundation than it is like Debian.
And that model has its place in the world, but I wouldn't be a Debian
Developer if Debian were funded and run that way.


I'm sorry to say this, but the only value that Debian provides to the
world, is packaging.  And, personally, over time, I've found it more and
more necessary to download, build, and compile from source - reducing
the value of Debian.
Pretty soon, I expect I'll be migrating.

Okay?  I mean, you say that like you expect me to be upset, but I'm
totally okay with that, and I wish you the best of luck with whatever
operating system you migrate to.

I've said this before, but I think it's an important reality check: it
doesn't 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Miles Fidelman  writes:
> On 1/7/19 10:06 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
>> chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
>> process any day, and find your description of the IETF pretty
>> entertaining.  :)

> Well yeah, but which "works" better in terms of results? Particularly,
> as viewed by those who are impacted by the process?

Oh, Debian, by far.  Debian is massively more productive than the IETF per
unit of effort put in the front end.  Now, some of that is the nature of
standards development, which is inherently hard and much more contentious
than nearly all packaging problems.  But Debian puts far more work out in
the world, faster, than the IETF does relative to the resources invested.

That's part of why I'd rather work on Debian Policy than on IETF
standards.  IETF standards are very valuable, but the process redefines
the concept of slow and tedious.  And frequently, if there's no consensus,
nothing happens at all in the IETF for literally years.  (Not that this
nevery happens in Debian *cough*, but it's less common and it's usually
only relatively less important things.)

That's fine, to be clear.  I don't think that's a flaw in the IETF.  The
IETF is trying to do one thing (create general standards for the Internet)
and Debian is trying to do something far, far different and more immediate
(create and maintain a usable operating system that runs on real-world
computers).  Obviously they will be organized differently along the lines
required to achieve those goals.  But the IETF, particularly in recent
years, has increasingly become an industry consortium in which
representatives of companies negotiate with each other over how to
implement interoperable standards for their products.  Not a community of
hobbyists who are building something in large part for the joy of it.

The IETF is an excellent example of an organization where you largely have
to pay people to get them to participate in it.  There are certainly some
people who participate in IETF working groups for fun, but compared to
Debian I'm fairly sure it's limited.  People largely participate in the
IETF because they're trying to accomplish something specific *outside* the
IETF for which an IETF standard would be useful, or because they're being
paid to do so.  Not, at least to the degree that is the case in Debian,
because participating is *itself* fun and exciting and meaningful.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> I think you're minimizing the level of investment & commitment it takes
> to either use Debian, particularly in production, and even more,
> minimizing the efforts of upstream, and kernel, developers upon whom
> Debian ultimately depends.

I really don't think I am, particularly since I've also done many of those
things, but I'm also a bit baffled as to why you think that you should get
to decide what I do with my volunteer time when you're not paying me.  I
mean, that's really what this comes down to.  Of *course* the people who
are members of the Debian project have the primary say it what it does.

> There are also those who contribute by providing support - e.g.,
> answering user questions on Debian lists.

And those people can join the project as voting members so that they can
have a say.  (I would love to see more of that, in fact; it's important to
include people in our community who do other things than package.)

> As far as I can tell, the only people who count, in Debian decision
> making, are packagers - which strikes me as a rather bizarre case of the
> tail wagging the dog.

Seriously, if you want control over something that you use, you have to
put resources into it, whether that is time or money.  You can purchase
something and have the influence of a customer and whatever contract you
can get, or you can put in sweat equity and get a voice that way.  Those
are pretty much your choices, apart from government-controlled projects.
This isn't a very radical concept.

> I remain amazed how much the impacts on users, systems administrators,
> and upstream developers were dismissed as irrelevant.

You list those things as if they're somehow distinct, when many (most,
probably) Debian Developers are all of those things.

> On a larger note, I point to the IETF as an example of a much larger
> community, running huge infrastructure, where pretty much anyone who
> shows up has a voice.

Do you know how the IETF funding model works, and how the Debian funding
model works?  You do know that the parent organization of the IETF has
paid employees, right?

The IETF is a lot more like the Linux Foundation than it is like Debian.
And that model has its place in the world, but I wouldn't be a Debian
Developer if Debian were funded and run that way.

> I'm sorry to say this, but the only value that Debian provides to the
> world, is packaging.  And, personally, over time, I've found it more and
> more necessary to download, build, and compile from source - reducing
> the value of Debian.

> Pretty soon, I expect I'll be migrating.

Okay?  I mean, you say that like you expect me to be upset, but I'm
totally okay with that, and I wish you the best of luck with whatever
operating system you migrate to.

I've said this before, but I think it's an important reality check: it
doesn't matter nearly as much who uses Debian, or how many people use
Debian, because we are not a company or a product, we don't sell
something, we're not trying to make a profit or maintain some growth
curve, and we're not part of this capitalist system.  We are building a
Linux distribution, to a very large extent, for each other, and
delightfully other people also find it useful.  Sometimes those people
even join us!  Which is great!

But we are delightfully not beholden to anyone outside the project, apart
from the much-appreciated donations of funding and equipment of course,
for our goals or even our survival.  Which means that we can have a much
more collaborative, communal decision-making process that doesn't obsess
over market share or retaining or monetizing every individual user.

> And, next time I do any serious developing, I expect the only init
> scripts I'll provide are sysvinit based.  That suggests that my platform
> will be something other than Debian.

I hope you have fun and enjoy that platform!  I'm very glad that you will
be able to find a platform that is a better fit for you.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/7/19 10:06 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:


Miles Fidelman  writes:


On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger
base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on
contentious issues.  Global infrastructure, with distributed ownership,
lots of stakeholders, all held together by agreements, with the decision
processes open to pretty much anybody who shows up.  The process puts
pretty much everyone else to shame - with lots to be learned from it.

Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
process any day, and find your description of the IETF pretty
entertaining.  :)


Well yeah, but which "works" better in terms of results? Particularly, 
as viewed by those who are impacted by the process?


In the case of IETF, it sure seems like the needs of users, network 
operators, and equipment makers are well represented.  As compared to 
Debian, where I see little regard for either users, or upstream developers.


The WG & IETF lists tend to have less bull twaddle - though the ICANN 
transition was an interesting period, and a far more open process, if 
somewhat a foregone conclusion.



Also, please note that many IETF participants are paid as part of their
job to participate in the IETF.  (We keep coming back to that.)  That's
true of some Debian contributors as well, of course, but I strongly
suspect the percentage is lower.


Now that's definitely true.  Back in my BBN days, I was only 
peripherally involved (I tended to work on projects that contributed to 
standards work, but generally didn't go to the meetings) - I definitely 
envied some of the travel opportunities afforded to the folks who went 
to the meetings, on the company dime.  Me, I got to go to DoD meetings 
(though some of those were also in "interesting" places).


Miles



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, January 07, 2019 07:06:28 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Miles Fidelman  writes:
> > On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger
> > base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on
> > contentious issues.  Global infrastructure, with distributed ownership,
> > lots of stakeholders, all held together by agreements, with the decision
> > processes open to pretty much anybody who shows up.  The process puts
> > pretty much everyone else to shame - with lots to be learned from it.
> 
> Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
> chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
> process any day, and find your description of the IETF pretty
> entertaining.  :)
> 
> Also, please note that many IETF participants are paid as part of their
> job to participate in the IETF.  (We keep coming back to that.)  That's
> true of some Debian contributors as well, of course, but I strongly
> suspect the percentage is lower.

Similarly here (also three RFCs, but never chaired a working group).

The IETF rough consensus model is very useful in many circumstances.  I've 
used it successfully in multiple settings outside the IETF to great success in 
both moving technical work forward or driving decision making in a closed 
group to closure.  It's not relevant to the problem a group like the Debian 
tech ctte has, however.

Groups like the tech ctte have a different problem than an IETF working group.  
They have to make final decisions on things that affect the project as a 
whole, many of which are not amenable to consensus building (as an example, 
the init system decision was going to be sysv init or not sysv init - there 
was no middle ground).

I'll also remind you that the IETF process as a whole is not whoever shows up.  
IETF working groups and IETF last call are open processes.  IESG decision 
making is not.  You can have all the working group consensus you want, if 
there are uncleared discusses against your draft, it's not moving forward.  If 
you want a comparison, the tech ctte is a lot more like the IESG than an IETF 
working group.

Scott K

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/7/19 9:12 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

Miles Fidelman  writes:


Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the
Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too
"personalized."

Some decisions are just hard.  I think nearly all of us involved in making
that decision burned out in various ways.  I'm not saying we couldn't have
done a better job... well, hm.  Actually, I am kind of saying that, if by
"couldn't" I include the people that we were at the time with the
emotional reserves that we had and the understanding that we had.

I could certainly do a better job *now* if I could rewind time, but that's
cheating, and humans don't get to do that.


We do get to learn from things, however.



I'm with Steve in that I'm pretty dubious that the process was the core of
why that decision was so hard.  I think it was so hard because it spanned
the gamut from technical to social issues, involved some issues that were
relatively concrete and others that were quite nebulous (such as the
interactions between the goals of the systemd developers and the broader
community), and also involved deep social divisions in the project between
folks who want Debian to be a platform for all things and folks who want
Debian to be more tightly integrated and more technically excellent along
a single axis.



Well, I'd argue that part of it had to do with who had a voice, and who 
didn't.  (More below.)





This stuff is inherently very hard, particularly when friends end up on
opposite sides and believe passionately in how important their concerns
are.

I think we sometimes analyze process to death and refight the last
fourteen wars and dig up problems to argue about them some more.  We're
human, this stuff is hard, some things are going to be brutal to get
through when we disagree, and it's okay to forgive ourselves for not being
perfect.  Or even being pretty shitty at it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't look for opportunities to fix things
that we can.  For example, we certainly uncovered some nasty edge cases in
the voting mechanism for the TC, which are now fixed.  And many of us felt
that people serving for extended periods of time on the TC wasn't socially
healthy for either us or the project, so we fixed that too.

But I think there's a idealistic, utopian tendency among a lot of
technical people, myself included, to believe that any serious conflict or
(from our perspective) incorrect decision is a bug in a process somewhere,
and if we can just find the right process, we can fix the bugs.  And it's
just not true.  Humans are messy and humans disagree, and sometimes stuff
is just really hard, and is going to be really hard no matter how you do
it.


Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the
decision, who did not have a seat at the table.  Those of us who rely on
Debian in production, for example.  Upstream developers for another.
Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a
"franchise," others found out after the fact.  Seems to me that lack of
representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.

Debian is *more* willing to try to take into account the needs of its
users than most free software projects, but Debian is still a volunteer
free software project, and the rule of just about every volunteer,
unfunded free software project is that the people who are doing the work
are the ones who are going to make the decisions.

Think of it this way: the people who are sufficiently invested in the
project to spend our time and energy on it over a long enough period of
time to become members are deeply invested in it and want to control where
it goes.  Plus, we're all volunteers and don't have to work on anything we
don't want to work on, which means maintaining our engagement is
absolutely necessary for the project to survive.



I think you're minimizing the level of investment & commitment it takes 
to either use Debian, particularly in production, and even more, 
minimizing the efforts of upstream, and kernel, developers upon whom 
Debian ultimately depends.  There are also those who contribute by 
providing support - e.g., answering user questions on Debian lists.


As far as I can tell, the only people who count, in Debian decision 
making, are packagers - which strikes me as a rather bizarre case of the 
tail wagging the dog.  I remain amazed how much the impacts on users, 
systems administrators, and upstream developers were dismissed as 
irrelevant.


On a larger note, I point to the IETF as an example of a much larger 
community, running huge infrastructure, where pretty much anyone who 
shows up has a voice.


I understand your desire to have a say in something that's important to
you, but, well, if it's that important to you, the New Maintainer process
is right over there?  We always need more help.  Absent that, the people
who have put their blood, sweat, and tears into the project are the people
who 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger
> base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on
> contentious issues.  Global infrastructure, with distributed ownership,
> lots of stakeholders, all held together by agreements, with the decision
> processes open to pretty much anybody who shows up.  The process puts
> pretty much everyone else to shame - with lots to be learned from it.

Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
process any day, and find your description of the IETF pretty
entertaining.  :)

Also, please note that many IETF participants are paid as part of their
job to participate in the IETF.  (We keep coming back to that.)  That's
true of some Debian contributors as well, of course, but I strongly
suspect the percentage is lower.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/7/19 8:48 PM, Eldon Koyle wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Miles Fidelman
 wrote:

On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:


On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:

Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):

On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:

[systemd stuff]

[systemd stuff]



The process that was followed was:

   - the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
 default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
   - the TC decided.
   - the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
 GR.

I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
decision that they disagree with.


Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the
Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too
"personalized."

Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the
decision, who did not have a seat at the table.  Those of us who rely on
Debian in production, for example.  Upstream developers for another.
Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a
"franchise," others found out after the fact.  Seems to me that lack of
representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.


I think one of the reasons Debian is able to function as well as it has is
because they aren't required to put stuff out to a vote from the entire
planet.  Having technical people (developers) make technical decisions
seems appropriate, even if you disagree with the decision as a user.


On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger 
base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on 
contentious issues.  Global infrastructure, with distributed ownership, 
lots of stakeholders, all held together by agreements, with the decision 
processes open to pretty much anybody who shows up.  The process puts 
pretty much everyone else to shame - with lots to be learned from it.





There are just as many people who would be griping about sysvinit at this
juncture.  Yes, it was nice to know what your init system was doing, but
there are a lot of features that are not provided by sysvinit but are provided
by systemd.



I'm hesitant to re-litigate the issue, but it's not about "know(ing) 
what your init system is doing," it's about impacts on both those of us 
who must administer systems, and on upstream developers.  To an awful 
lot of us, the added features of systemd add nothing, but the impacts 
are major, and damaging.


It continues to amaze me how much the interests of packagers dominate 
Debian, pushing aside the interests of those who actually develop code, 
and those who use it.  Yes, APT is great, and perhaps the primary 
selling point of Debian - but only up to a point.






To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
else get their way.

To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.

Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
personally had been consulted.  But that doesn't scale, and provides no
basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.

Personally, as someone who's been involved in other organizations, and
governance processes, I disagree, on all points.  I also suggest that
your categorical rejection of the possibility that things could be done
better, is illustrative of the toxicity of the current process.

I think part of the toxicity is inherent in communicating via a mailing list.

It is very easy to feel attacked when someone points out a problem with
your argument (especially if you disagree with their counterpoints) -- even
more so when you have spent hours trying to make a logical argument that
hopefully won't offend anyone.


Maybe - but we've kind of grown up in this world.  A lot of us in the 
networking world like to quote Postel's law:  "be conservative in what 
you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."  I've always found 
that it applies very well to email communication.  Unfortunately, it 
strikes me that people have become awfully touchy, and quick to take 
offense, these days.  Personally, I find it more uncivil when people 
take offense, than when people give it.


(It's worth noting that while "fighting words" are recognized, under 
some circumstances, as an exception to the 1st Amendment, it's pretty 
hard to avoid legal liability for violently responding to fighting 
words.  "Them's fighting wo

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Eldon Koyle]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Miles Fidelman
 wrote:
>
> On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> >>>> On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>>> [systemd stuff]
> >>>> [systemd stuff]

> > The process that was followed was:
> >
> >   - the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
> > default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
> >   - the TC decided.
> >   - the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
> > GR.
> >
> > I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
> > Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
> > that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
> > project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
> > decision that they disagree with.
>
>
> Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the
> Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too
> "personalized."
>
> Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the
> decision, who did not have a seat at the table.  Those of us who rely on
> Debian in production, for example.  Upstream developers for another.
> Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a
> "franchise," others found out after the fact.  Seems to me that lack of
> representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.
>

I think one of the reasons Debian is able to function as well as it has is
because they aren't required to put stuff out to a vote from the entire
planet.  Having technical people (developers) make technical decisions
seems appropriate, even if you disagree with the decision as a user.

There are just as many people who would be griping about sysvinit at this
juncture.  Yes, it was nice to know what your init system was doing, but
there are a lot of features that are not provided by sysvinit but are provided
by systemd.


> >
> > To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
> > outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
> > else get their way.
> >
> > To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
> > palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.
> >
> > Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
> > personally had been consulted.  But that doesn't scale, and provides no
> > basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.
>
> Personally, as someone who's been involved in other organizations, and
> governance processes, I disagree, on all points.  I also suggest that
> your categorical rejection of the possibility that things could be done
> better, is illustrative of the toxicity of the current process.

I think part of the toxicity is inherent in communicating via a mailing list.

It is very easy to feel attacked when someone points out a problem with
your argument (especially if you disagree with their counterpoints) -- even
more so when you have spent hours trying to make a logical argument that
hopefully won't offend anyone.

-- 
Eldon Koyle

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:


On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:

Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):

On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:

[systemd stuff]

[systemd stuff]

I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a defining
experience for many of us.  Many of us are still bitter, me included.
I also appreciate that in some respects these fights are still,
unfortunately, being fought and harm is still being done (although
things are much less bad than they were).
But I really don't think it is helpful to link the recent arguments
over behaviour in the project, with init system diversity problems.
The issues are very different.  And the toxic emotional and political
baggage from the init system stuff is really bad.  So bringing init
system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
increases the hurt and argument, but does not lead to any better
conclusions.

With all due respect - and recognizing your central involvement in the
init-system-neutrality issue – I have to disagree with you here.
IMHO, the issues are VERY similar - having to do with groupthink, diversion
from groupthink, and really, really poor processes (and perhaps attitudes).

The process that was followed was:

  - the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
  - the TC decided.
  - the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
GR.

I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
decision that they disagree with.



Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the 
Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too 
"personalized."


Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the 
decision, who did not have a seat at the table.  Those of us who rely on 
Debian in production, for example.  Upstream developers for another.  
Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a 
"franchise," others found out after the fact.  Seems to me that lack of 
representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.




(I have a great deal of sympathy for users who were frustrated with the
actual decision, and worried about the impact of such a major change on
their future use of Debian.  I just don't have any sympathy for those who
channeled that frustration into toxic posts on the mailing lists that sought
to browbeat Debian into changing course.)

I categorically reject the notion that a different process should have been
followed.  Giving a formal voice to a wider range of stakeholders in Debian
(i.e.: Debian users as opposed to Debian Developers) would not have made the
discussion less acrimonious; it would not have eliminated the feelings of
upset at the conclusion.  This was a decision about a default, which there
could only be one of.  There were always going to be winners and losers.


It might, however, have led to the Technical Committee giving more 
weight to the impacts of the decisions.




The Debian Technical Committee voted unanimously to move away from sysvinit
as the default.


And to making systemd the default, rather than init-neutral.  And Ian 
resigned over the issue.





To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
else get their way.

To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.

Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
personally had been consulted.  But that doesn't scale, and provides no
basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.


Personally, as someone who's been involved in other organizations, and 
governance processes, I disagree, on all points.  I also suggest that 
your categorical rejection of the possibility that things could be done 
better, is illustrative of the toxicity of the current process.


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:

> > Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> > > On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > [systemd stuff]
> > > [systemd stuff]
> > I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a defining
> > experience for many of us.  Many of us are still bitter, me included.
> > I also appreciate that in some respects these fights are still,
> > unfortunately, being fought and harm is still being done (although
> > things are much less bad than they were).

> > But I really don't think it is helpful to link the recent arguments
> > over behaviour in the project, with init system diversity problems.

> > The issues are very different.  And the toxic emotional and political
> > baggage from the init system stuff is really bad.  So bringing init
> > system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
> > increases the hurt and argument, but does not lead to any better
> > conclusions.

> With all due respect - and recognizing your central involvement in the
> init-system-neutrality issue – I have to disagree with you here.

> IMHO, the issues are VERY similar - having to do with groupthink, diversion
> from groupthink, and really, really poor processes (and perhaps attitudes).

The process that was followed was:

 - the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
   default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
 - the TC decided.
 - the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
   GR.

I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
decision that they disagree with.

(I have a great deal of sympathy for users who were frustrated with the
actual decision, and worried about the impact of such a major change on
their future use of Debian.  I just don't have any sympathy for those who
channeled that frustration into toxic posts on the mailing lists that sought
to browbeat Debian into changing course.)

I categorically reject the notion that a different process should have been
followed.  Giving a formal voice to a wider range of stakeholders in Debian
(i.e.: Debian users as opposed to Debian Developers) would not have made the
discussion less acrimonious; it would not have eliminated the feelings of
upset at the conclusion.  This was a decision about a default, which there
could only be one of.  There were always going to be winners and losers.

The Debian Technical Committee voted unanimously to move away from sysvinit
as the default.

To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
else get their way.

To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.

Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
personally had been consulted.  But that doesn't scale, and provides no
basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

Ian,

On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:


Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):

On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:

[systemd stuff]

[systemd stuff]

I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a defining
experience for many of us.  Many of us are still bitter, me included.
I also appreciate that in some respects these fights are still,
unfortunately, being fought and harm is still being done (although
things are much less bad than they were).

But I really don't think it is helpful to link the recent arguments
over behaviour in the project, with init system diversity problems.

The issues are very different.  And the toxic emotional and political
baggage from the init system stuff is really bad.  So bringing init
system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
increases the hurt and argument, but does not lead to any better
conclusions.

With all due respect - and recognizing your central involvement in the 
init-system-neutrality issue – I have to disagree with you here.


IMHO, the issues are VERY similar - having to do with groupthink, 
diversion from groupthink, and really, really poor processes (and 
perhaps attitudes).


It's not unlike a current issue in the church I belong to.  On the one 
hand, it's an issue over a change to one of the church's external signs 
- but it has blown up into an issue over who gets to make decisions 
(volunteer committee vs. a community-wide vote), hurt feelings among 
volunteers when someone deigns to protest a unilateral action (which 
seem to trump dissent), a rather authoritarian board that is currently 
asserting far more power than granted by our bylaws (IMHO), a seeming 
general acceptance of these authoritarian tendencies ("we don't care 
about that particular issue, so we're staying out of it"), and a general 
unwillingness to discuss issues via email list (leaving no other venue, 
other than stage managed meetings, called by our board, at their 
leisure, and at inconvenient times).  People have left over this kind of 
bull, and I'm thinking seriously about it myself (after 30 or so years).


Where Debian is concerned, the same set of issues are playing out - this 
time over the Code of Conduct, but they also played, with (IMHO) far 
more serious consequences over the systemd issues - including your own 
resignation as chair of the Technical Committee.  As you put it then, 
"While it is important that the views of the 30-40% of the project who 
agree with me should continue to be represented on the TC, I myself am 
clearly too controversial a figure at this point to do so. I should step 
aside to try to reduce the extent to which conversations about the 
project's governance are personalized."  HOW IS THIS NOT THE SAME 
SCENARIO PLAYING OUT AGAIN?"


The current discussion makes it clear that we obviously didn't learn 
anything from the systemd issue – to the severe detriment of the project 
as a whole. It strikes me as particularly relevant to point this out – 
as evidence of significant underlying pathologies that go well beyond 
the narrow issue of "acceptable conduct."  As you put it "the toxic 
emotional and political baggage from the init system stuff is really 
bad" - IMHO, the root causes are the same, and we're going through it again.


Respectfully,

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Martin Steigerwald]

Ian Jackson - 07.01.19, 19:00:
> > For me, any code of conduct and its enforcement needs to be based on
> > actual behavior, never on assuming intentions or assuming about how
> > people are.
> 
> Once again, there is a difference between *assuming* and *inferring*.
> 
> I doubt this will really convince you.  But I couldn't let stand the
> claim that I am *assuming* bad intentions.  I most certainly am not.

I am sorry, that was the conclusion I arrived at as I read your initial 
mail. Thank you for clarifying.

I am still with just looking at behavior for any enforcement, but I 
agree that on repetition of harmful behavior after have been warning, a 
stronger enforcement might be needed.

I am not positive whether that has been the case here, but unless I 
missed I did not yet hear any official statement of anti-harassment or dam 
team. I do not have a complete picture, I wonder whether anyone has. So 
I just let it be as that for now.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

Re: Censorship in Debian

[flackjacket5]

Jan 7, 2019, 3:57 PM by ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:

>
> The issues are very different.  And the toxic emotional and political
> baggage from the init system stuff is really bad.  So bringing init
> system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
> increases the hurt and argument, but does not lead to any better
> conclusions.
>
>

Looks like DAM and DPL brought the toxic baggage when they decide to impose 
demotions on volunteers

DAM change Debian from being a community to THe Apprentice.  Sad.





--
Securely sent with Tutanota. Get your own encrypted, ad-free mailbox:
https://tutanota.com 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Ian Jackson]

Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
> > Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
> > get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
> > situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
> > can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as
> > much as they can get away with.  They will turn the dispute about
> > their personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to
> > increase the cost of enforcing the rules against them.  And if that
> > fails they will do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further
> > punishment.
> 
> Have you actually really seen such kind of behavior?

Yes.

> I disagree with calling people toxic.

Well, I don't want to name names, of course.  But it hardly seems
controversial that toxic people exist ?  We have maybe 1000-10,000
active contributors.

So, making for a moment the assumption that there is no correlation
either way with someone's toxicity and being a Debian contributor, we
should expect our community to have between 1 and 10 people who are
more toxic/abrasive/dishonest/whatever than 99.9% of the population.

We can make a much nicer community by applying a gatekeeping
function...

> Also I am not sure how you'd come to know about about any agenda behind 
> the behavior. How do you know about the intentions?

It is not actually necessary to infer intention.  Since it is not
necessary, in order to take action, to prove that bad behaviour is
malicious.

Rather, it is sufficient to observe that continuation of the behaviour
is harmful, and that lesser efforts to stop it have failed.


But, it is useful to understand intentions because they can be
predictive.  This is true even for intentions inferred from past
behaviour (which is the only way you will ever discover the real
intention of someone dishonest, obviously):

> One part of the code of conduct as I got it is to assume good 
> intentions, here, if I got you correctly you assume bad, harmful 
> intentions for at least some people, people that you call toxic.

No, I am not assuming bad behaviour.  My first assumption if I see an
abrasive message is that the person is having a bad day.  My first
assumption if I see someone stating a falsehood is that they are
mistaken.

These assumptions can, however, be overcome by evidence.

In particular, things like: refusal to acknowledge error or apologise;
use of sophistry of various kinds; escalation in response to every
criticism; making mutually inconsistent statements or repeating
falsehoods already debunked; significantly worse behaviour to weaker
victims or in less auditable scenarios.  Recurrence of the above.

> For me, any code of conduct and its enforcement needs to be based on 
> actual behavior, never on assuming intentions or assuming about how 
> people are.

Once again, there is a difference between *assuming* and *inferring*.

I doubt this will really convince you.  But I couldn't let stand the
claim that I am *assuming* bad intentions.  I most certainly am not.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese 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: Censorship in Debian

[Martin Steigerwald]

Hello,

Ian Jackson - 07.01.19, 16:57:
> Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> > On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > [systemd stuff]
> > 
> > [systemd stuff]
> 
> I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a defining
> experience for many of us.  Many of us are still bitter, me included.
> I also appreciate that in some respects these fights are still,
> unfortunately, being fought and harm is still being done (although
> things are much less bad than they were).
> 
> But I really don't think it is helpful to link the recent arguments
> over behaviour in the project, with init system diversity problems.
> 
> The issues are very different.  And the toxic emotional and political
> baggage from the init system stuff is really bad.  So bringing init
> system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
> increases the hurt and argument, but does not lead to any better
> conclusions.

As much IMO its important to let go, forgive and clean up anything still 
left over from that debate… I agree with you.

I got the impression that from reading in various threads that the 
current issues seem to be used as a dumping ground for other stuff that 
is not directly related to it.

I wonder whether it would be a good idea to have something about non-
violent, i.e. peaceful communication in one of the next major community 
events like Debconf and maybe also one about mediation.

I have read the the KDE project had something about non-violent 
communication in their last KDE Academy event.

It appears challenging to me to sort out the issues about the recent 
Code of Conduct enforcement actions without communicating face to face 
or at least via voice.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:


On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:43:33PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

It sure seems that, in some sectors, disagreement is offensive, and offense
trumps substance.  (One might point to our current President in that regard,
as well.)
I kind of wonder if Debian is headed that way - given the way the discussion
on systemd went, not that long ago.

I don't know where you've gotten the impression that the systemd discussion
implies Debian does not tolerate disagreement.

*Respectful* disagreement has always been tolerated regarding Debian's
choice of default init system.  What should not be tolerated (and all of
these have actually occurred on Debian mailing lists, which is why this is a
sore subject) is:

  - accusations that members of the TC have sold out to a particular
commercial entity
  - refusal to accept the decision that was made in accordance with the
Debian constitution
  - attempts to readjudicate the decision on Debian mailing lists (as opposed
to via a GR, which Debian developers do have a right to use to override a
TC decision if they believe it was wrong).
  - using a disagreement about init systems to justify attacks on developers'
character, integrity, or technical competence

There is no expectation that everyone agree with every technical decision in
Debian.  The only expectation is that they engage constructively in spite of
any disagreements.



I simply point to the number of people - including long time developers 
- who left the community over the issue.  Not to mention a completely 
wrong-headed (IMHO) process & result – and the time it took to fix the 
long-standing bugs in the installer that stood in the way of building 
without systemd (which struck me as awfully passive-aggressive).


It was far from a constructive process.

Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On January 6, 2019 12:29:26 PM UTC, Wouter Verhelst  wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > Hello Russ, Scott,
>> > 
>> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > > Scott Kitterman  writes:
>> > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond
>the core
>> > >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect).
> I like
>> > >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything.
>> > > 
>> > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political
>project at its
>> > > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever
>been *not*
>> > > political.  But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what
>> > > "political" means.  (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably
>narrow
>> > > definition.)
>> > 
>> > I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is
>the
>> > idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in
>order
>> > to participate?
>> > 
>> > Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very
>different
>> > political positions generate reasons to support its spread. 
>Economic
>> > libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good
>--
>> > but different -- reasons to support Free Software.
>> > 
>> > For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free
>Software
>> > projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite
>different
>> > reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of
>> > freedom in software.
>> > 
>> > Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that
>> > participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political
>> > position that has more in common with other participants than
>simply the
>> > property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free
>Software?
>> > 
>> > (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be
>> > valid.  I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is
>coming
>> > from any better.)
>> 
>> I think that's pretty close to it.
>> 
>> Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a
>good 
>> thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing
>to 
>> take).  I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to
>enable 
>> individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always
>so caring, 
>> entities be they government or corporate.
>> 
>> I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad
>speech is 
>> almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost).
>> 
>> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been
>marginalized 
>> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not
>marginalized, but I 
>> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern
>relative to the 
>> CoC).  Not everyone can be accommodated.  There's broad agreement
>that someone 
>> who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any
>definition) 
>> isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to
>how far 
>> the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns
>without it 
>> getting ridiculous.
>
>I agree with much of this.
>
>[...]
>> All accommodations have practical limits.  In my reading of the
>Diversity 
>> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it
>will be 
>> taken in the future.
>
>I'm wondering what makes you say that, though. Can you clarify?
>
>I think the code of conduct is mostly a "try to be excellent to each
>other" kind of statement, with an "or else" rider at the end. That
>rider
>is pretty vague (on purpose). It was written in that way precisely
>because I agree with you that it's worth working on making people who
>feel they are being marginalized feel welcome; and the consequences are
>there precisely because there are indeed limits.
>
>What am I missing?

Steve's (vorlon) response was pretty close to the mark.

I understand the claim he makes about engage constructively being a brake on 
the kinds of problems I fear.  I'm not entirely convinced though.

In any disagreement there is room for asshattery on both sides of the 
discussion.  If one is evaluating if someone is engaged in harassing behavior, 
I think it's much easier to see it in someone you disagree with than someone 
you fundamentally agree with.

It's my assumption that people who volunteer for the unpleasant work of things 
like the anti-harrassment team do so because they believe that there's 
significant problems in the project with harassment.  As a result, I would 
anticipate that there's a natural tendency to be more likely to  find extreme 
behavior unreasonable from an alleged harasser than from the reverse.

Note that this fear is not specific to any recent events or current AH team 
members.  I think there's a selection bias inherent in the structure.  Some 
might argue that any 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Sat 05 Jan 2019 at 04:24pm -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I think that's pretty close to it.

Cool.

> My bottom line is that today is a very divisive time in the world with many
> forces trying to drive wedges between groups and force people into one camp or
> another and then 'hate' the other tribe.  We'll be better off in Debian the
> more of that we can ignore.  Let's focus on the things we need to focus on to
> make Debian great and ignore the rest.

I think it might be more useful to think in terms of toleration of
difference, rather than the act of ignoring difference, even if for many
practical purposes the way to tolerate difference will be to ignore it.

Doing nothing more than ignoring difference might lead to a reluctance
to take positive steps to address some group being tacitly excluded from
participation in Debian.  I'm thinking of those who argue that there is
no discrimination against women in Debian.  They often say that they
simply pay no attention at all to the gender of the people sending them
patches.  But those of us who would like to take steps designed to
increase the number of women participating see this as besides the
point.

The difference is between ignoring something because we have some
practical end in mind, like an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
situation, versus tolerating difference out of respect for the
intellectual and moral capacities of the other party.

(Yes, I appreciate I've mixed together differences of political opinion
and differences of gender in this e-mail, but that's because I take it
to be good for us to be diverse along both of those axes.)

-- 
Sean Whitton

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello Russ, Scott,
> > 
> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Scott Kitterman  writes:
> > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
> > >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect).  I like
> > >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything.
> > > 
> > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its
> > > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not*
> > > political.  But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what
> > > "political" means.  (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow
> > > definition.)
> > 
> > I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is the
> > idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in order
> > to participate?
> > 
> > Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very different
> > political positions generate reasons to support its spread.  Economic
> > libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good --
> > but different -- reasons to support Free Software.
> > 
> > For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free Software
> > projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite different
> > reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of
> > freedom in software.
> > 
> > Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that
> > participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political
> > position that has more in common with other participants than simply the
> > property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free Software?
> > 
> > (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be
> > valid.  I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is coming
> > from any better.)
> 
> I think that's pretty close to it.
> 
> Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a good 
> thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing to 
> take).  I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to enable 
> individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always so 
> caring, 
> entities be they government or corporate.
> 
> I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad speech 
> is 
> almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost).
> 
> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized 
> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but 
> I 
> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the 
> CoC).  Not everyone can be accommodated.  There's broad agreement that 
> someone 
> who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any definition) 
> isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to how far 
> the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns without it 
> getting ridiculous.

I agree with much of this.

[...]
> All accommodations have practical limits.  In my reading of the Diversity 
> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be 
> taken in the future.

I'm wondering what makes you say that, though. Can you clarify?

I think the code of conduct is mostly a "try to be excellent to each
other" kind of statement, with an "or else" rider at the end. That rider
is pretty vague (on purpose). It was written in that way precisely
because I agree with you that it's worth working on making people who
feel they are being marginalized feel welcome; and the consequences are
there precisely because there are indeed limits.

What am I missing?

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 12:04:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> maybe I should also consider
> staying a bit more quiet.  I don't have to; I can just speak my mind
> anyway, but when I do, there's a higher than normal chance I might need to
> apologize afterwards.

Well, maybe not in your case ;-)

Thanks for putting it so eloquently again, Russ.

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:43:33PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> It sure seems that, in some sectors, disagreement is offensive, and offense
> trumps substance.  (One might point to our current President in that regard,
> as well.)

> I kind of wonder if Debian is headed that way - given the way the discussion
> on systemd went, not that long ago.

I don't know where you've gotten the impression that the systemd discussion
implies Debian does not tolerate disagreement.

*Respectful* disagreement has always been tolerated regarding Debian's
choice of default init system.  What should not be tolerated (and all of
these have actually occurred on Debian mailing lists, which is why this is a
sore subject) is:

 - accusations that members of the TC have sold out to a particular
   commercial entity
 - refusal to accept the decision that was made in accordance with the
   Debian constitution
 - attempts to readjudicate the decision on Debian mailing lists (as opposed
   to via a GR, which Debian developers do have a right to use to override a
   TC decision if they believe it was wrong).
 - using a disagreement about init systems to justify attacks on developers'
   character, integrity, or technical competence

There is no expectation that everyone agree with every technical decision in
Debian.  The only expectation is that they engage constructively in spite of
any disagreements.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Martin Steigerwald  writes:
> Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:

>> Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
>> get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
>> situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
>> can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as
>> much as they can get away with.  They will turn the dispute about their
>> personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to increase the
>> cost of enforcing the rules against them.  And if that fails they will
>> do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further punishment.

> Have you actually really seen such kind of behavior?

Yes.

Worse, I was young and stupid and didn't recognize what was going on, so I
let myself get taken in by it and made excuses for them and thus became
part of the problem.  I've hopefully gotten better at recognizing the
signs earlier now.

I don't think this is a problem that Debian is commonly plagued by, but
there are absolutely people in this world who I don't want to have
anything to do with, and if they join a community I'm a member of and that
community won't eject them, I will leave.  Because life is too short to be
on edge all the time, to be in a community that I cannot trust at all, or
to pour my emotional resources into that kind of scary black hole.

Hopefully eventually they'll realize how much they hurt other people, but
they can work on realizing that somewhere far away from me and anyone and
anything I care about.  I just want to have some fun working on free
software and maybe changing the world a little bit, hopefully in the
company of some people I can call friends.  At no point in that process
did I sign up to be part of a community psychological counseling effort
for dangerous people.

I am, to be clear, saying this in the abstract, and please don't read
particular people from the current discussion into this comment.  But you
asked a general question about whether such people truly exist in the
world, and the answer is yes, they do.

Also, to be clear, if you're reading this and thinking "shit, am I one of
those people?", you're not.  Almost by definition.  I have never seen
anyone who acted that way ask themselves that question.  One of their most
defining characteristics is that nothing, *nothing* is *ever* their fault
(although some of them can fake convincing apologies).

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Martin Steigerwald]

Dear Ian.

Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
> Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
> get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
> situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
> can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as
> much as they can get away with.  They will turn the dispute about
> their personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to
> increase the cost of enforcing the rules against them.  And if that
> fails they will do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further
> punishment.

Have you actually really seen such kind of behavior?

I disagree with calling people toxic.

Also I am not sure how you'd come to know about about any agenda behind 
the behavior. How do you know about the intentions?

One part of the code of conduct as I got it is to assume good 
intentions, here, if I got you correctly you assume bad, harmful 
intentions for at least some people, people that you call toxic.

I can concur that people are different, have different view-points, 
different ways to communicate, different language, different behavior. But 
people aren't inherently good or bad or toxic. Well there are people who 
just troll, but other than that?

For me, any code of conduct and its enforcement needs to be based on 
actual behavior, never on assuming intentions or assuming about how 
people are.

I just maintain some packages, but I am quite concerned about the 
current discussions on debian-project and other public mailing lists.

I am quite confused and don't really know what is going on. I feel kinda 
overwhelmed by all I read so far and it does not give me a clear picture 
on what is actually really going on here. That it appears that a good 
portion of discussions happen on debian-private or other private 
channels does not appear to improve transparency as well.

So just all the best for anyone in the position to do something 
meaningful to help improving the situation. At the moment I feel kinda 
uncomfortable about the Debian project.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2019/01/05 23:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum 
> and maximum height.  It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are 
> excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't 
> economically 
> or operationally feasible to develop, test, and maintain a wide variety of 
> ejection seats to accommodate the full range of the human condition.
> 
> All accommodations have practical limits.  In my reading of the Diversity 
> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be 
> taken in the future.

I want to start off by assuring you that I understand what you mean, but
I can't think of an example of such a practical limit that would
currently apply to the CoC, can you?

The closest kind of example I can think of is if someone doesn't have
access to any kind of computer, it's kind of impossible to become an
uploading DD in such a case, and it's not that we're exclusionary, just
a practical limitation. However, I don't think that specific one is even
worth mentioning in a CoC, but if you have identified specific limits,
can you share them? A CoC can always be amended or at least some
annotations made to explain it.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been
> marginalized and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not
> marginalized, but I think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my
> concern relative to the CoC).  Not everyone can be accommodated.  There's
> broad agreement that someone who insists on an unfettered right to be an
> ass (for most any definition) isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but
> there's also a limit to how far the project can reasonably go in catering
> to people's concerns without it getting ridiculous.

> To pick a completely different type of example of the same kind of issue:

> Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum 
> and maximum height.  It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are 
> excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't 
> economically 
> or operationally feasible to develop, test, and maintain a wide variety of 
> ejection seats to accommodate the full range of the human condition.

> All accommodations have practical limits.  In my reading of the Diversity 
> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be 
> taken in the future.

I actually think the Diversity Statement does capture this, in the phrase:
"as long as they interact constructively with our community".

There are people from marginalized groups in our society that have been so
traumatized by their experiences that they *cannot* assume good faith from
white cis het men.  That's not their fault; nor is it Debian's fault.  But
as a project whose membership includes an awful lot of white cis het men, if
someone finds themselves unable to engage constructively around the work of
creating a free operating system without blaming their colleagues for past
traumas experienced elsewhere, I don't think they are going to find a home
in Debian.  (In truth, I think they are unlikely to ever make it far enough
to apply for DD given the obstacles involved.)

The corollary is that white cis het men who are participating in these wider
systems of oppression should not be allowed to retraumatize those from
marginalized groups within Debian - *including* by mocking or downplaying
the significance of that trauma.

It's a natural human reaction that when one white man sees another
superficially similar white man experience consequences for his behavior
towards people from another group while protesting his innocence, the first
man worries he will also be unjustly persecuted for doing something that he
didn't know was wrong.  But just as with the #HimToo movement, this isn't
supported by the actual data.  Over two decades of Debian history and
hundreds of white men, and only one has found himself expelled by the
project for this class of conduct.  This is hardly the opening salvo of some
great purge.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Russ, Scott,
> 
> On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman  writes:
> >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
> >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect).  I like
> >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything.
> > 
> > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its
> > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not*
> > political.  But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what
> > "political" means.  (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow
> > definition.)
> 
> I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is the
> idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in order
> to participate?
> 
> Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very different
> political positions generate reasons to support its spread.  Economic
> libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good --
> but different -- reasons to support Free Software.
> 
> For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free Software
> projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite different
> reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of
> freedom in software.
> 
> Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that
> participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political
> position that has more in common with other participants than simply the
> property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free Software?
> 
> (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be
> valid.  I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is coming
> from any better.)

I think that's pretty close to it.

Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a good 
thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing to 
take).  I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to enable 
individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always so caring, 
entities be they government or corporate.

I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad speech is 
almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost).

I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized 
and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but I 
think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the 
CoC).  Not everyone can be accommodated.  There's broad agreement that someone 
who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any definition) 
isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to how far 
the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns without it 
getting ridiculous.

To pick a completely different type of example of the same kind of issue:

Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum 
and maximum height.  It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are 
excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't economically 
or operationally feasible to develop, test, and maintain a wide variety of 
ejection seats to accommodate the full range of the human condition.

All accommodations have practical limits.  In my reading of the Diversity 
Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be 
taken in the future.

So that was longer than I expected and I think I understand where I'm coming 
from better myself.  Thanks.

My bottom line is that today is a very divisive time in the world with many 
forces trying to drive wedges between groups and force people into one camp or 
another and then 'hate' the other tribe.  We'll be better off in Debian the 
more of that we can ignore.  Let's focus on the things we need to focus on to 
make Debian great and ignore the rest.

Another example and I'll quit:

As a US voter, I care deeply about the results of the last US presidential 
election.  If I'm arguing US politics with you and trying to bring you to vote 
in the future in what I think is the 'right' way, then your views on the 
issues that caused you to vote one way or another are really important.  If 
we're working on Debian, as long as we can participate constructively in 
Debian together, it's irrelevant.  

So let's not be more political than we need to be to get the Debian/Free 
Software job done.

Scott K

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Russ, Scott,

On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Scott Kitterman  writes:

>> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
>> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect).  I like
>> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything.
>
> Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its
> very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not*
> political.  But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what
> "political" means.  (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow
> definition.)

I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is the
idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in order
to participate?

Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very different
political positions generate reasons to support its spread.  Economic
libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good --
but different -- reasons to support Free Software.

For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free Software
projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite different
reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of
freedom in software.

Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that
participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political
position that has more in common with other participants than simply the
property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free Software?

(I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be
valid.  I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is coming
from any better.)

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Ian Jackson]

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
> > world is doing this all the time.
> 
> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".
> 
> I think it's probably news to a lot of people that Debian isn't that
> sort of a situation today.

Yes.  I think you have put your finger on it.

For a significant minority of Debian's contributors - including me -
Debian definitely used to be a place where we didn't have to think
about what we were saying.


The effects of that unbridled expression on other (potential) members
of the community was not something we thought about much.  But, at
least speaking for myself:

I have been hearing from a lot of people whose participation I care
about - often, people who already have lots of shit to deal with in
wider society.  Those people are saying that it would really help them
to have spaces like Debian have a nicer atmosphere, so that there is
less risk of being harshly criticised and where having a thick skin,
and plenty of emotional resilience, is not so necessary.

So I have been (haltingly) trying to improve my own behaviour.  Yes,
that's work.  Being pleasant to people whose ideas I consider
seriously wrong does not come naturally to me.  Sometimes, I fail.
But now that I and others in Debian are making this effort, I can see
the benefits - on both small and large scale.


But it's not enough for just those of us who have been convinced of
the value of this change, to try to make that change personally and to
help each other.

Unfortunately in a community of thousands there will inevitably be
some people who will continue to do what is harmful, but easy and
convenient and fun for themselves, and who will - at least initially
- reject suggestions that they too may need to think hard about how
their behaviour affects others people (and particular, how it affects
people who are not like themselves).

It is indeed natural for people to resent it, when previously they
could do what they liked, but now they are being being asked to
think about and moderate what they say and do,

So without some kind of consequences, unfortunate behaviour will
continue.  It is in fact very natural human behaviour to push
boundaries like that.  Even very agreeable people will sometimes
misbehave to the point of being mildly told off.

Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as
much as they can get away with.  They will turn the dispute about
their personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to
increase the cost of enforcing the rules against them.  And if that
fails they will do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further
punishment.


Maybe even such a person could provide a net positive contribution,
but only by the community maintaining a constant threat of punishment.
(At least for many years, until perhaps their personal growth changes
the situation.)  That is exhausting for the moderators who are
responsible for policing the offender.

Particularly, patterns of lying, selective compliance, and so on, make
that job very hard, especially if the moderators are subject to
oversight by a body of largely naive and detached people who are
unfamiliar with how toxic people operate generally, and who cannot
fully and properly analyse every reported incident.

Perhaps it is better for the world as a whole for such a person to be
given the very serious shock of being permanently ejected.  That will
teach them that trying to constantly play the exact line (of getting
away with things) does carry a serious risk of serious consequence.
Maybe the next community they get involved with will find them a more
positive influence, and easier to deal with.  And at least the
community they were ejected from is spared the work of educating
(and fighting) the unwilling.


Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese 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: Censorship in Debian

[Christian Kastner]

On 05.01.19 02:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Another action: people treating you poorly in ways over which they 
> have personal discretion, such as refusing to work with you, calling 
> you rude names, attacking you in public, and so forth, because of 
> what you say or publish.  We'll call that action Dandelion.
> 
> Yet another action: people who were previously echoing your words or
>  republishing your writing, potentially to a much larger audience, 
> stop doing that because they disagree with your words in some way, 
> but your original (possibly much more limited) publication venue is 
> unaffected. We'll call that action Daisy.

The term "people" here is a bit confusing, so just to clarify: in
Dandelion, it refers to individuals acting on their own behalf.

In Daisy, if people-as-individuals who were previously echoing your
words stop doing so, then it's just another case of Dandelion to me.

In Daisy, it people-acting-on-behalf-of-the-community stop doing so,
then that's an official action to me.

> Debian is clearly not doing, nor is capable of doing, Clover.  A 
> whole lot of Dandelion happens all the time, and is probably 
> unavoidable. One could argue that Debian is sort of officially doing 
> Dandelion at the moment; personally, I don't think it is, but it's 
> not 100% obvious> Debian clearly did Daisy.  We can all agree on 
> that.

I believe so.

> There's no point in arguing about Clover, because that's not 
> happening. The primary argument we're having is over when Daisy is 
> and isn't appropriate.

Exactly!

> I don't think changing the labels changes the core disagreement, 
> which is that some people want to have a far higher bar for Daisy 
> than other people.

I think labeling it properly (as you did with Clover, Dandelion, Daisy)
is necessary for the debate on where to set the bar for the community.

I don't see how an agreement could be reached otherwise. Do flowers have
blossoms? Are these blossoms yellow or white? You can only answer those
questions when you know whether you are discussing Clovers, Dandelions,
or Daisies.

Was it an official action? If yes, then (I believe) we should have rules
and procedures for this. If it wasn't an official action, then we're
back at Dandelion, people-as-individuals.

-- 
Christian Kastner

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Christian Kastner]

On 05.01.19 01:57, Eldon Koyle wrote
> Whether that form of censorship is good or bad or rights-infringing 
> is a separate argument.

Thank you, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

I'm not even arguing whether this specific action was good or bad or
rights-infringing.

--
Christian Kastner

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Christian Kastner]

On 04.01.19 23:44, Philip Hands wrote:
> Christian Kastner  writes:
> 
>> We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
>> However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.
> 
> Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account,
> let alone apply even the lightest form of coercion to someone.

Eldon addressed this in another reply.

> How is that anything like a government?

How is one member removing another member from a platform _on behalf of
the Project_ not an aspect of government?

That action fits every definition of government that I could find.

> There is no territory or jurisdiction into which one can stumble by
> mistake and find oneself suddenly within the zone of influence of
> Debian.

The DPL has numerous powers to which I, as long as I am part of this
community, could be bound. The CTTE has jurisdiction and the power to
override technical decisions in my contributions to this community.

> The only real sanction that can be exercised in the name of the project
> is the removal of a previously granted privilege.
I don't share your assumption that this is a privilege and not a right
(according to the definitions I found), but regardless: exercising _in
the name of th project_, as you say, makes it an official action of the
community.

--
Christian Kastner

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".

> I think it's probably news to a lot of people that Debian isn't that
> sort of a situation today.

But of *course* we're not!  The project is more than 1,000 people!
There's no way that is a situation where we're all among friends and can
completely let our guard down and say whatever we think without any
filters.

What you're talking about is trust, and we can certainly try to build
trust within the project, and part of that is giving other people the
benefit of the doubt, assuming good will, and so forth.  To the extent
that we can achieve that uniformly across everyone in the project, that's
great.  But a project with a couple dozen people can reach a much higher
level of trust than a project of over a thousand people.  As the scale
gets larger, the level of baseline trust we can establish is necessarily
going to be lower.

Trust is complicated and involves a lot of factors.  It's not just the
assumption of good will, it's also the chances that someone else agrees
with you politically, has the same motives that you do, cares about the
same goals that you do, and so forth.  Even things like sharing a native
language or an economic background or a national origin help build trust.
When the project gets larger, some of those parts of trust will lessen
necessarily because we have a wider variety of members.  It's sad in a
way, but it's inherent in size.  1,000 people is a *lot* of people.
(Obviously, there's a smaller core of people who participate in
discussions like this, but it's still a *lot* of people.)

I'm afraid Debian as a project is not in "small gathering with your close
friends" territory.  It's in "small town" territory.  The good news is
that this means we have way more people doing way more interesting work,
and way more cultures and thus more interesting things to learn.  The bad
news is that, yes, the level of baseline trust is a bit lower, which means
that we have to be more polite and more thoughtful and more, well,
"civilized" in the old definition of "the way people behave in cities."

> (IMO, one of the problems with planet aggregators is it changes your
> personal blog from being a place where you can say whatever you want and
> have it only affect yourself, to a place where you have to watch what
> you say because it's automatically pushed to strangers who are only
> interested in very particular parts of who you are)

Yup.  And if you don't want that effect, well, don't aggregate your blog.
It's okay to not aggregate your blog!

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
> world is doing this all the time.

There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".

I think it's probably news to a lot of people that Debian isn't that
sort of a situation today.

(IMO, one of the problems with planet aggregators is it changes your
personal blog from being a place where you can say whatever you want
and have it only affect yourself, to a place where you have to watch
what you say because it's automatically pushed to strangers who are only
interested in very particular parts of who you are)

Cheers,
aj

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Eldon Koyle  writes:

> In regards to the use of the word 'censorship', looking at the
> definition[1][2][3] of the word seems to support its use in regards to
> a-h removing feeds from planet for being objectionable (and does not
> imply any infringement on rights).  Whether that form of censorship is
> good or bad or rights-infringing is a separate argument.

Language is messy and inconsistent and infinitely variable, and meanings
shift and people use words because they're stronger or softer or for
various other reasons.  It can make it hard to communicate.  But I don't
think the definitions of words are the heart of this discussion, so trying
to hammer out what definitions to use may not get us any closer to really
having the root conversation.

(The words below are random meadow plants and aren't intended to have any
connotations.)

One action: people preventing you from speaking or publishing an opinion
via force, either by killing you or by taking away your possessions or by
confining you, or by credibly threatening those things.  We'll call that
action Clover.

Another action: people treating you poorly in ways over which they have
personal discretion, such as refusing to work with you, calling you rude
names, attacking you in public, and so forth, because of what you say or
publish.  We'll call that action Dandelion.

Yet another action: people who were previously echoing your words or
republishing your writing, potentially to a much larger audience, stop
doing that because they disagree with your words in some way, but your
original (possibly much more limited) publication venue is unaffected.
We'll call that action Daisy.

Debian is clearly not doing, nor is capable of doing, Clover.  A whole lot
of Dandelion happens all the time, and is probably unavoidable.  One could
argue that Debian is sort of officially doing Dandelion at the moment;
personally, I don't think it is, but it's not 100% obvious.

Debian clearly did Daisy.  We can all agree on that.

There's no point in arguing about Clover, because that's not happening.
The primary argument we're having is over when Daisy is and isn't
appropriate.  I don't think changing the labels changes the core
disagreement, which is that some people want to have a far higher bar for
Daisy than other people.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Eldon Koyle]

Hi Philip,

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:45 PM Philip Hands  wrote:
>
> Christian Kastner  writes:
>
> > We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
> > However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.
>
> Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account,
> let alone apply even the lightest form of coercion to someone.


If you value your status as a Debian Developer (which the project _can_
take away), then the Debian project _does_ have some ability to coerce
you.  What would you be willing to do to keep your status as a DD?

> Alleging that removal of such privileges amounts to an infringement of
> rights[1] simply makes no sense.

> [1] using the word "censorship" suggests a belief in a right to demand
> syndication for one's blog, which is not a right I'm aware of.

In regards to the use of the word 'censorship', looking at the
definition[1][2][3] of the word seems to support its use in regards to
a-h removing feeds from planet for being objectionable (and does not
imply any infringement on rights).  Whether that form of censorship is
good or bad or rights-infringing is a separate argument.

[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship
  1: "The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films,
  news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable,
  or a threat to security."
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
  1b: "the actions or practices of censors"
[3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
  1a: "an official who examines materials (such as publications or
  films) for objectionable matter"

-- 
Eldon Koyle

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Philip Hands]

Christian Kastner  writes:

> We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
> However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.

Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account,
let alone apply even the lightest form of coercion to someone.

How is that anything like a government?

There is no territory or jurisdiction into which one can stumble by
mistake and find oneself suddenly within the zone of influence of
Debian.

There's not even any way of persuading the people with the job titles in
Debian to do anything if they happen to lose interest for some reason.

The only real sanction that can be exercised in the name of the project
is the removal of a previously granted privilege.

Since those privileges are not rights, one cannot demand that they be
maintained or even really expect them to be maintained, since they all
depend upon donations in one way or another, where those donations are
certainly not guaranteed to continue indefinitely.

Alleging that removal of such privileges amounts to an infringement of
rights[1] simply makes no sense.

Cheers, Phil.

[1] using the word "censorship" suggests a belief in a right to demand
syndication for one's blog, which is not a right I'm aware of.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Jonathan Carter  writes:
> On 2019/01/04 15:44, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>> Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that
>> is).  I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about
>> disproportionate reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so
>> (I'm also not arguing that did or didn't happen in any recent situation
>> - I am trying to see if there is some consensus to be found on at least
>> how to talk about it).

> Since there were so many replies to your email without actually
> answering your question, I decided to indulge.

> I think what you're referring to above is self-censorship, I think this
> wikipedia page resonates with what you're trying to get across:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

Thank you, Jonathan.  That was a much better response than my too-flippant
one.

Also, I never said this in my replies, but thank you, Scott, for looking
for a less charged word than censorship to talk about this.  I think that
makes the conversation better.  And indeed it's possible for communities
to go too far and create self-censorship that is harmful and gets in the
way of talking about important issues, so it's useful to have a term for
this so that we can talk about whether Debian is close to that line or
not.  It was a good question and deserved a real answer.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/4/19 2:44 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:


Scott Kitterman  writes:


For clarification from me, I don't expect a consequence free
free-for-all where anything at all can be said with no repercussions.
There are absolutely things that are not acceptable, but on the other
hand, I also don't think "someone was offended" is a reasonable standard
(and I am not claiming that's what Debian is currently using - but there
are places where things seem to me to be headed in that direction).


As a reference point, let me mention a recent incident at our church.

One of our committees radically changed a sign outside the building – 
essentially changing its use.


I went to the chair of our "outreach committee" and said, in about so 
many words, "I protest.  I don't like it.  And that kind of change 
should be voted on by the Congregation."


Apparently, that hurt the guy's feelings so much that he ignored me, and 
when I raised a protest on our Church-wide email list, it led to a huge 
bro hah hah.  (And right now, the sign has been changed to yet something 
else, that's essentially an "f u").  No resolution in sight, on either 
the specific issue, or the broader issue of Church governance.  We did 
have a Church-wide "listening session" where both the guy and his wife 
talked about how attacked they felt.


It sure seems that, in some sectors, disagreement is offensive, and 
offense trumps substance.  (One might point to our current President in 
that regard, as well.)


I kind of wonder if Debian is headed that way - given the way the 
discussion on systemd went, not that long ago.


Miles Fidelman

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Scott

On 2019/01/04 15:44, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that is).  
> I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about disproportionate 
> reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so (I'm also not arguing 
> that 
> did or didn't happen in any recent situation - I am trying to see if there is 
> some consensus to be found on at least how to talk about it).

Since there were so many replies to your email without actually
answering your question, I decided to indulge.

I think what you're referring to above is self-censorship, I think this
wikipedia page resonates with what you're trying to get across:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:

> I think that perhaps the source of Scott's concern (and to an extent my
> own) is that it is not necessarily obvious where the boundary is when it
> comes to Debian.  The uncertainty here is the problem.  I deal with it
> by trying to remain well away from the boundary.  However, I can see how
> some who view Debian as a forum for social interaction in addition to
> technical interaction are rightly concerned.

I completely agree that it's uncertain.  I don't think this is only in
Debian; I think it's uncertain in society as a whole right now.  We're
going through a particularly tumultuous period in politics in many of the
countries from which Debian contributors come, and there's a ton of heated
political statements and hard feelings and fear-based attempts to rally
various political forces, and it's all very uncomfortable and upsetting.

None of us can avoid being affected by that discomfort and upsetness.

Standards are indeed shifting.  This happens all the time in human
society, and it's part of the discomfort of getting older.  I have had
older relatives who used various racial slurs without even thinking about
it, which would be totally unacceptable today.  I suspect that towards the
end of their lives they were pretty irritated about having to change the
way that they always talked in order to avoid facing social consequences.

The uncertainty is real, and it's upsetting, and I think we should all be
conscious of that.

But, well, I'm pretty dubious that we're going to be able to completely
remove the uncertainty, because human society is complicated and there's
some baseline level of uncertainty.  This is *particularly* true in an
international project where we're coming from far, far different social
backgrounds and dealing with different local issues.  Part of the
difficulty, but also the joy, of being part of a project like this is that
we all get a crash course in cultural sensitivity and become much better
at understanding the perspectives of people from far different cultures,
and finding ways to work with them (sometimes haltingly).  It's a very
valuable life skill, and it can be really exciting when one pulls it off
successfully, but it's real work!  It's hard!  It's worth admitting to
ourselves that it's hard.

And some of us are reaching farther and doing more work than others.  For
example, I'm from the United States, which for better or worse has a
tendency to get its culture and politics all over everyone else to an
extent that a lot of people are vaguely aware of US cultural conventions
because they're ubiquitous.  To take an obvious example already raised,
we're having this whole discussion in my native language.  That's a huge,
huge advantage for me!  And, to take another example, the only reason why
I'm not utterly oblivious about, say, political tensions between Greece
and Turkey is because I happen to have some friends who pulled me aside
and educated me before I made a fool of myself.  Because I have the
privilege of assuming that people will follow my cultural conventions most
of the time, I don't *have* to learn things like that to be successful.

That doesn't make me a bad person (or a good person); it just makes me
lucky in that particular way.

I personally believe pretty strongly that, as a matter of fairness, we
should distribute the work more evenly.  Therefore, I try to go learn
things that I don't really *need* to learn, so that I can try to meet
people closer to halfway.  I've been lucky enough in life that it's never
going to be halfway, but I can at least get a bit closer.

That's where I'm coming from in this.  The uncertainty is real, and I get
why people find it upsetting.  I totally understand why it feels like a
strain, and not particularly fun when people just want to write code.  But
I also think it's the price of being an international community, and
*someone* is going to have to pay that price, and to the extent that
people like me don't do our part of the heavy lifting, that price falls on
other people very disproportionately, and to me that's unfair.

We should be gracious with each other, and understand that we're not all
international diplomats, and that we're going to make mistakes and barge
into each other's political conflicts and be that person who says
something horribly offensive.  And we apologize and forgive and move on as
best we can and keep this whole amazing project going.  But it *is* work,
and yes, we're asking everyone to do work, and yes, that's a real burden.
I don't think that's really avoidable; it's just a question of how we
distribute the work.

My general philosophy on this is that insofar as I have the energy, I
should step up and do my part of the work.  And when I don't have the
energy, I don't have to do the work, but maybe I should also consider
staying a bit more quiet.  I don't have to; I can just speak my mind
anyway, but when I do, there's a higher than normal chance I might need to

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Scott Kitterman  writes:

> For clarification from me, I don't expect a consequence free
> free-for-all where anything at all can be said with no repercussions.
> There are absolutely things that are not acceptable, but on the other
> hand, I also don't think "someone was offended" is a reasonable standard
> (and I am not claiming that's what Debian is currently using - but there
> are places where things seem to me to be headed in that direction).

I think it's useful to think of offending someone as being like stepping
on someone's foot.  Most of the time, it probably means you should
apologize.  Apologizing doesn't mean that there was necessarily anything
you could have done differently.  Perhaps you stumbled into someone's foot
through no fault of your own, but it's still normal to apologize.
Apologizing doesn't mean rending your garments and doing five years of
penance; it just means saying "whoops, I'm sorry!"

There are occasional instances where someone intentionally sticks their
foot in your way.  But this is relatively rare, and the first time you
step on someone's foot, it usually doesn't make sense to assume this
happened.

If the same person's foot constantly ends up under your feet, but you
don't seem to be stepping on anyone else's foot, it may be time to start
reconsidering whether you should keep apologizing or if something else is
going on.  If you keep stumbling over a variety of people's feet with some
regularity, it's probably time to figure out why this is happening and
what you need to do to stop stepping on people's feet, which might involve
some real work, unfortunately.

But most of the time, if you step on someone's foot, you can just
apologize and move on and everything is fine.  It happens to all of us.
It doesn't have to be a big deal.  (But refusing to apologize does very
quickly make it a big deal.)

And sometimes people stick their feet in the most irritating places, and
it can be a bit of a chore to step over their feet, and it can be
seriously tempting to tromp down on that foot that someone is sticking out
*right in the middle of the aisle*.  And, just like we do in everyday
life, it's almost never a good idea to do that, as opposed to just
grumbling to yourself about it and maybe complaining to some friends about
that rude person who had their foot stuck out in the aisle.

Usually when I do give into temptation and stomp down on that
rudely-placed foot, it turns out that person had just broken their foot
and was on the way to the doctor's to get a cast put on it, and then I
feel awful.

> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect).  I like
> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything.

Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its
very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not*
political.  But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what
"political" means.  (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow
definition.)

> My personal challenges with engaging constructively don't derive from
> any particular political perspective.  They come more from having a
> strong temper over which my grasp is unfortunately not always adequate
> and being old enough that I worry about language shifting under me in
> ways I can't anticipate.

A sincere apology goes a very long way.  No one wants to make life
unreasonably harder for other people.  What gets people upset is not that
people make mistakes, or even that some people make mistakes more than
other people.  This is normal, ordinary human community stuff.  What gets
people upset is when people don't make any apparent attempt to not make
mistakes, or (particularly) when they vigorously defend their right to
tromp on someone else's foot because the foot shouldn't have been there in
the first place.  Then everything gets heated.

As long as you're trying, even when it's hard, I think nearly everyone is
going to assume good faith.  The hard feelings come when someone declares
that they should not have to try, and that being told to try to not step
on people's feet is an offense against their human rights.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:55:51 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman  writes:
> > Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully
> > understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think
> > is reasonable.
> 
> Anyone who has held down a job in a typical workplace has already shown
> that they can understand what's reasonable and adjust to a social
> environment well enough to do just fine in Debian.  (And yes, I realize
> that's *also* a challenging environment for some folks, and in a lot of
> cases we can be *more* welcoming than that, but I think it's being aware
> of that baseline.)
> 
> > I suspect we agree on more than we disagree in this area, but I don't
> > think "My way or the highway" is the right answer beyond a certain point
> > in a worldwide project like this.
> 
> It's certainly not "my" way -- it's some sort of consensus emergent
> standards among all of us, which changes in the complicated and intricate
> ways of all human communities.  But every community has standards of
> behavior and social consequences, whether formal or informal, for
> violating them.  There exists no place on earth in which you can say
> literally whatever you want with zero consequences, because humans are a
> social species and we interact with each other and those communities
> involve making judgments about who we include and don't.
> 
> > Please accept that I am concerned that reasonable people who, none the
> > less, do not fully accept a certain political orthodoxy are uncertain
> > about where the lines are and find that chilling their willingness to
> > participate in Debian beyond narrow strictly technical discussions.
> 
> Yup, sometimes it's uncertain and uncomfortable.  That's because
> navigating social situations can be work.  It can require effort.  And
> yes, we all make mistakes (for instance, I just made one in going for
> pithy over fully explained, and made it seem like I was attacking you, for
> which I sincerely apologize).  And it's a process; you step on someone's
> foot or put your foot in your mouth, and then you adjust, and pick
> yourself up and dust yourself off and try again.
> 
> The part that I'm a little frustrated by is that I feel like you think
> people of a particular political belief are doing *more* work than others,
> and wow, that is not my experience at all.  The people who complain the
> most about "chilling effects" are, in my experience, the people who are
> doing the *least* amount of work in most conversations.
> 
> And that may still be a lot of work!  That may still be really hard for
> them!  I'm not saying this to say that they're doing very little work in
> some objective sense.
> 
> What I am saying is that they seem oblivious to the fact that the people
> on the other side of the discussion are *also* doing a *considerable*
> amount of work on how they communicate, and when, and what wording they
> use, and have been all along.  They're just not complaining about it,
> because they realize this is just the normal price of human social
> community.
> 
> > I find this notion that if anyone has any concern or confusion about if
> > their opinions are OK to express it's only because they are wrong very
> > troubling.
> 
> That's not what I'm saying at all, and I'm sorry that it came across that
> way.  Having concern and confusion about whether your opinions are okay to
> express is *also* part of being an adult.  This is a universal experience.

Thanks for clarifying.  I understand your perspective much better now and 
appreciate the apology.

For clarification from me, I don't expect a consequence free free-for-all 
where anything at all can be said with no repercussions.  There are absolutely 
things that are not acceptable, but on the other hand, I also don't think 
"someone was offended" is a reasonable standard (and I am not claiming that's 
what Debian is currently using - but there are places where things seem to me 
to be headed in that direction).

I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core issue 
of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect).  I like that the 
diversity statement isn't anti-anything.

My personal challenges with engaging constructively don't derive from any 
particular political perspective.  They come more from having a strong temper 
over which my grasp is unfortunately not always adequate and being old enough 
that I worry about language shifting under me in ways I can't anticipate.

Scott K

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Scott Kitterman  writes:
> 
> >>> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> >>> the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> >>> due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?
> 
> >> Being an adult.
> 
> > That was uncalled for and inconsistent with the high bar you have set
> > for yourself in so many other discussions.
> 
> How was it uncalled for?  It says exactly what I meant.  I'm not saying
> anything at all about Scott's behavior; it's the very simple answer to his
> question.
> 
> I apologize for apparently giving you the impression that it was an attack
> on Scott.  I probably should have unpacked it a lot more.  But having to
> mediate your behavior to follow standards that you may not agree with or
> face consequences around what organizations will have you as a member is
> *exactly* being an adult.  This is how the world works.
> 
> You have to watch what you say at work, or you might be fired.  You have
> to be careful of what you say among groups, or that group may eject you.
> You have to follow the standards of an organization of which you're a
> member, or that organization will expel you.
> 
> This is just ordinary, perfectly normal adult behavior.  Everyone watches
> their behavior and their wording all the time.
> 
This explanation puts your earlier comment in a differnet light.  Thank
you for elaborating.

> The idea that there is any forum in which people interact as adults where
> there is no chilling effect on one's unfettered speech and where no one
> has to watch their language, tone, or presentation is pure fantasy
> nonsense.  Even 4chan has social norms and consequences for going against
> them.
> 
> People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
> world is doing this all the time.
> 
I think that perhaps the source of Scott's concern (and to an extent my
own) is that it is not necessarily obvious where the boundary is when it
comes to Debian.  The uncertainty here is the problem.  I deal with it
by trying to remain well away from the boundary.  However, I can see how
some who view Debian as a forum for social interaction in addition to
technical interaction are rightly concerned.

Russel Stuart's earlier message on "Expulsions Policy" got me thinking
that it would be enormously helpful if there were a way to codify a
community standard the way that we have codified package policies.  At
least that would be more clear and less ambiguous than what we have now,
in the same way that writing down package policies does for the quality
of packages in the archive.

Sadly, I don't think that is in the realm of the possible.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Scott Kitterman  writes:

> Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully
> understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think
> is reasonable.

Anyone who has held down a job in a typical workplace has already shown
that they can understand what's reasonable and adjust to a social
environment well enough to do just fine in Debian.  (And yes, I realize
that's *also* a challenging environment for some folks, and in a lot of
cases we can be *more* welcoming than that, but I think it's being aware
of that baseline.)

> I suspect we agree on more than we disagree in this area, but I don't
> think "My way or the highway" is the right answer beyond a certain point
> in a worldwide project like this.

It's certainly not "my" way -- it's some sort of consensus emergent
standards among all of us, which changes in the complicated and intricate
ways of all human communities.  But every community has standards of
behavior and social consequences, whether formal or informal, for
violating them.  There exists no place on earth in which you can say
literally whatever you want with zero consequences, because humans are a
social species and we interact with each other and those communities
involve making judgments about who we include and don't.

> Please accept that I am concerned that reasonable people who, none the
> less, do not fully accept a certain political orthodoxy are uncertain
> about where the lines are and find that chilling their willingness to
> participate in Debian beyond narrow strictly technical discussions.

Yup, sometimes it's uncertain and uncomfortable.  That's because
navigating social situations can be work.  It can require effort.  And
yes, we all make mistakes (for instance, I just made one in going for
pithy over fully explained, and made it seem like I was attacking you, for
which I sincerely apologize).  And it's a process; you step on someone's
foot or put your foot in your mouth, and then you adjust, and pick
yourself up and dust yourself off and try again.

The part that I'm a little frustrated by is that I feel like you think
people of a particular political belief are doing *more* work than others,
and wow, that is not my experience at all.  The people who complain the
most about "chilling effects" are, in my experience, the people who are
doing the *least* amount of work in most conversations.

And that may still be a lot of work!  That may still be really hard for
them!  I'm not saying this to say that they're doing very little work in
some objective sense.

What I am saying is that they seem oblivious to the fact that the people
on the other side of the discussion are *also* doing a *considerable*
amount of work on how they communicate, and when, and what wording they
use, and have been all along.  They're just not complaining about it,
because they realize this is just the normal price of human social
community.

> I find this notion that if anyone has any concern or confusion about if
> their opinions are OK to express it's only because they are wrong very
> troubling.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I'm sorry that it came across that
way.  Having concern and confusion about whether your opinions are okay to
express is *also* part of being an adult.  This is a universal experience.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman  writes:

>>> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
>>> the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
>>> due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?

>> Being an adult.

> That was uncalled for and inconsistent with the high bar you have set
> for yourself in so many other discussions.

How was it uncalled for?  It says exactly what I meant.  I'm not saying
anything at all about Scott's behavior; it's the very simple answer to his
question.

I apologize for apparently giving you the impression that it was an attack
on Scott.  I probably should have unpacked it a lot more.  But having to
mediate your behavior to follow standards that you may not agree with or
face consequences around what organizations will have you as a member is
*exactly* being an adult.  This is how the world works.

You have to watch what you say at work, or you might be fired.  You have
to be careful of what you say among groups, or that group may eject you.
You have to follow the standards of an organization of which you're a
member, or that organization will expel you.

This is just ordinary, perfectly normal adult behavior.  Everyone watches
their behavior and their wording all the time.

The idea that there is any forum in which people interact as adults where
there is no chilling effect on one's unfettered speech and where no one
has to watch their language, tone, or presentation is pure fantasy
nonsense.  Even 4chan has social norms and consequences for going against
them.

People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd.  Everyone else in the
world is doing this all the time.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:17:56 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman  writes:
> > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> > due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?
> 
> Being an adult.

Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully 
understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think is 
reasonable.

My question is independent of if recent DAM actions were appropriate or not.

I suspect we agree on more than we disagree in this area, but I don't think 
"My way or the highway" is the right answer beyond a certain point in a 
worldwide project like this.

Please accept that I am concerned that reasonable people who, none the less, 
do not fully accept a certain political orthodoxy are uncertain about where 
the lines are and find that chilling their willingness to participate in 
Debian beyond narrow strictly technical discussions.  I am not trying to make 
excuses for people who go out of their way to make other people feel less 
welcome in Debian.

I find this notion that if anyone has any concern or confusion about if their 
opinions are OK to express it's only because they are wrong very troubling.

Scott K

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman  writes:
> 
> > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> > due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?
> 
> Being an adult.
> 
Russ,

That was uncalled for and inconsistent with the high bar you have set
for yourself in so many other discussions.

The word Scott is trying to find is most likely 'boycott':

  Boycott \Boy"cott\, n.
 The process, fact, or pressure of boycotting; a combining to
 withhold or prevent dealing or social intercourse with a
 tradesman, employer, etc.; social and business interdiction
 for the purpose of coercion.
 [1913 Webster]

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Scott Kitterman  writes:

> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?

Being an adult.

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

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Christian Kastner]

On 04/01/2019 14.34, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
>>> We are not a Government.
>> 
>> We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most 
>> certainly have.
>> 
>> We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has 
>> Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our
>> interests; we delegate powers; we subject ourselves to powers,
>> etc.
> 
> Only for very limited areas. Debian does not have the power to tell 
> us how to live outside of our collaboration with Debian. It's a very
> limited organisation.

Yes. The extent of any government is on a spectrum (consider two
governments: one totalitarian, the other libertarian), and every
government has a certain jurisdiction, which can be defined by any means
(territorial, as modern nations do; personal, as it was during
feudalism; spiritual, as is is with religions; etc.).

Because, of this, government's jurisdictions can overlap (and frequently
do).

> The worst censure that can be applied is to be removed from that 
> organisation. That does not compare to the possible removal of 
> liberty (or even life!) that is amongst a Government's powers.

The fact that one government lacks powers another government has does
not make negate the existence of the former.

We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.

>>> Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy
>>> community with Government censorship,
>> 
>> This action was not performed  by the community, but by an Official
>> acting Debian's behalf. Consequently, it _was_ government 
>> censorship.
> 
> Rubbish. A refusal by Debian to publish on somebody's behalf is not 
> at all the same as government censorship.

While it is true from a technological point of view that Debian is
publishing something, considering the nature of Debian and the fora in
question, refusing someone a voice in these fora is (to me) akin to a
sovereign government banning speech on public property. Like shutting
down Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. Debian's fora are digital, not physical.

I stated in my previous mail that censorship can be justified. I
mentioned this because I'm aware of the stigma that comes with the word.
But censorship is not categorically wrong, just as homicide isn't
categorically wrong (it's justified in self defense, for example).

But when it's done, it should be acknowledged as such. And ideally,
there should be checks & balances in place, and a certain amount of
transparency.

--
Christian Kastner

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, January 04, 2019 01:34:41 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> >On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> >> We are not a Government.
> >
> >We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
> >certainly have.
> >
> >We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has
> >Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our interests; we
> >delegate powers; we subject ourselves to powers, etc.
> 
> Only for very limited areas. Debian does not have the power to tell us
> how to live outside of our collaboration with Debian. It's a very
> limited organisation. The worst censure that can be applied is to be
> removed from that organisation. That does not compare to the possible
> removal of liberty (or even life!) that is amongst a Government's
> powers.
> 
> >> Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy community
> >> with Government censorship,
> >
> >This action was not performed  by the community, but by an Official
> >acting Debian's behalf. Consequently, it _was_ government censorship.
> 
> Rubbish. A refusal by Debian to publish on somebody's behalf is not at
> all the same as government censorship. A government can remove the
> right to publish at all.

If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's the 
right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public due to 
the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?

Perhaps if we can get past "it's not censorship" and say what it is, then we 
can make some progress.

Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that is).  
I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about disproportionate 
reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so (I'm also not arguing that 
did or didn't happen in any recent situation - I am trying to see if there is 
some consensus to be found on at least how to talk about it).

Scott K 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Steve McIntyre]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
>On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
>> We are not a Government.
>
>We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
>certainly have.
>
>We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has
>Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our interests; we
>delegate powers; we subject ourselves to powers, etc.

Only for very limited areas. Debian does not have the power to tell us
how to live outside of our collaboration with Debian. It's a very
limited organisation. The worst censure that can be applied is to be
removed from that organisation. That does not compare to the possible
removal of liberty (or even life!) that is amongst a Government's
powers.

>> Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy community 
>> with Government censorship,
>
>This action was not performed  by the community, but by an Official
>acting Debian's behalf. Consequently, it _was_ government censorship.

Rubbish. A refusal by Debian to publish on somebody's behalf is not at
all the same as government censorship. A government can remove the
right to publish at all.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Christian Kastner]

On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> We are not a Government.

We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
certainly have.

We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has
Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our interests; we
delegate powers; we subject ourselves to powers, etc.

> Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy community 
> with Government censorship,

This action was not performed  by the community, but by an Official
acting Debian's behalf. Consequently, it _was_ government censorship.

Government censorship, as a limitation of speech, can be of course
be justified or not, but I don't want to go into that here.

I merely want to refute the notion that "only Goverments can censor"
implies that any non-Sovereign body cannot possibly censor. The thread
title is valid.

> Please don't conflate [...] a blog being removed from project 
> resources with the killing of a journalist.

Absolutely.


--
Christian Kastner

Re: Censorship in Debian

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Steve Langasek  [2018-12-29 06:21 +0100]:

Regardless of anything else, this is not unconstitutional.  The constitution
gives the DPL the power to delegate decisions about approving and expelling
developers;


Correct, but this wasn't about approving or expelling developers.

--
.''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
 `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems

"academia is really just a way to help those with high volumes of
nothing to say to social status."
-- myself on #debian-devel, 01 Feb 2007


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:44:38PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Instead, DAM ruled a verdict, and influenced other people to the
> point that "because DAM ruled" was given as a reason for other
> measures. This was an unconstitutional abuse of DAM's powers,

Regardless of anything else, this is not unconstitutional.  The constitution
gives the DPL the power to delegate decisions about approving and expelling
developers; the DPL delegates this power to the DAM; thus any exercise of
this power is constitutional.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Gunnar Wolf  [2018-12-27 14:48 +0100]:

He considered he didn't get a right to be heard, nor notified about
the process as it was progressing towards a decision, but only
notified about a final decision.


I would like to add that this — being presented with a decision, 
without any form of engagement with me, before or after, is exactly 
what happened in my case, except DAM kindly suggested that if 
I followed theit suggestion, I would avoid expulsion. I chose to 
follow those steps, despite the overstepping of competencies at the 
time, also based on the promise I received that the issue would be 
analysed once the waters had calmed. No such analysis ever happened.


--
.''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
 `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems

"sometimes the urge to do bad is nearly overpowering"
   -- ben horne


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)

Re: Cyberbullying (was: Censorship) in Debian

[Daniel Pocock]

On 28/12/18 07:42, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>> Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a
>> new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that
>> needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought.
> Unsurprisingly there are monster threads on explusions on
> debian-private.  Parts are specific to some people, and parts are about
> procedure.  I am not going to read the threads, because I do not want to
> be bound to secrecy about the discussion on the procedure.


Anybody with any experience of cyberbullying or harassment wouldn't
simply cringe at this, they would be looking on in horror at the very
existence of these "monster threads" in a community that is so
influential and respected as Debian.

Please take a moment and think about what is the worst that eventually
happens when a community (or it's leader) abuses members in this way
indefinitely.

https://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying_and_suicide_research_fact_sheet.pdf

The people who unleashed this monster need to take responsibility.  They
have created and sustained this state of hostility, since 20 September,
every other wayward communication that has come up is a consequence of
that.  No member of this community should ever have been expected to
bear such a heavy burden.

Stop this now.  Make sure it never happens again in Debian.  It is that
simple.

Regards,

Daniel

--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 07:48:40AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Of course, I don't think Norbert was literal characterizing the
> situation as a gulag. I don't think anybody here thought he was. I
> don't think Norbert expected anybody to have an image of him starving
> to death or chilled in the steppe...

Even so, the comparison is unrespectful hyperbole.

> Norbert rightly mentioned several aspects he considers unfair about
> the way this process went. He considered he didn't get a right to
> be heard, nor notified about the process as it was progressing towards
> a decision, but only notified about a final decision.
> 
> I completely agree with him.

You can have that position and still see that the gulag comparison was
unnecessary, unrespectful, and unhelpful.

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Charles Plessy]

Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> 
> Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a
> new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that
> needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought.

Unsurprisingly there are monster threads on explusions on
debian-private.  Parts are specific to some people, and parts are about
procedure.  I am not going to read the threads, because I do not want to
be bound to secrecy about the discussion on the procedure.

I think that this disucssion must be public.  This disucssion can be
done in a civil, slow-paced way that foccuses on exploring together the
pros and cons of multiple directions.  Redoing it from scratch on one of
our mailing lists would be a good opportunity to reboot it in a more
productive and less divisive way some time in January when everybody has
cooled down.

I invite the decision makers to start and lead this discussion.

Have a nice day, and for those who celebrate a new year, my wishes for a
happy new one !

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

This entire thread is so cringy, this is likely my last reply.

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:31 PM Norbert Preining  wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor
> > camps, targeted killings, prisons and sentences of death. We sound like
>
> You did not understand the meaning of this comparison: The point was
> that the correct agreed upon and legal procedures have not been
> followed. And you deliberately removed this part from your email and
> consideration.

Gulags and military tribunals were both legal. They were not policy or
procedure fouls.
They were not foibles. It was intentional and targeted.

They were ways to murder dissidents. Say what you want about our ability to
self-govern the Debian community, and ways we've messed up, we've never
killed anyone as part of the expulsion process, and the comparisons need to
stop, even if I'm still "missing the point" and people consider what happened
with anti-harassment unfair. A-H is not killing DDs. Stop comparing them to it.

It's a very simple point.

> It is not about the planet, it is about expulsion that did not follow
> the rules. This *can* be consider a libel case due to influences on my
> professional life.
>
> Best
>
> Norbert

Paul

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Gunnar Wolf]

Paul R. Tagliamonte dijo [Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500]:
> > So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general?
> 
> I strongly encourage you to read about Gulags and understand for both
> mlitary tribunal and prison camp, the result is often death. Debian can not
> kill you. Debian can't silence you.
> (...)
> To all on this thread: stop marginalizing those who actually face death and
> life in prison for speaking their mind. The comparison cheapens their life.
> Stand up for those who have fought for our rights by not drawing such petty
> comparisons.

Of course, I don't think Norbert was literal characterizing the
situation as a gulag. I don't think anybody here thought he was. I
don't think Norbert expected anybody to have an image of him starving
to death or chilled in the steppe...

Norbert rightly mentioned several aspects he considers unfair about
the way this process went. He considered he didn't get a right to
be heard, nor notified about the process as it was progressing towards
a decision, but only notified about a final decision.

I completely agree with him.

and I don't think DAM's view, "he can reapply in six months, what's
unfair about it?", is fair.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Norbert Preining]

Paul,

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor
> camps, targeted killings, prisons and sentences of death. We sound like

You did not understand the meaning of this comparison: The point was
that the correct agreed upon and legal procedures have not been
followed. And you deliberately removed this part from your email and
consideration.

It is not about the planet, it is about expulsion that did not follow
the rules. This *can* be consider a libel case due to influences on my
professional life.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. +JAIST +TeX Live +Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 9:59 AM Norbert

> So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general?
>

I strongly encourage you to read about Gulags and understand for both
mlitary tribunal and prison camp, the result is often death. Debian can not
kill you. Debian can't silence you.

Removing a blog from the planet maybe marginally reduces readers, but
readers who are part of the community. Debian can not rst connections to
your blog. There is no speech being repressed.

You're a software engineer, living in very nice circumstances working with
other people on a hobby project together.

Get some perspective.

To all on this thread: stop marginalizing those who actually face death and
life in prison for speaking their mind. The comparison cheapens their life.
Stand up for those who have fought for our rights by not drawing such petty
comparisons.

Debian is not able to do anything anyone would do to anyone in a gulag.

Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor
camps, targeted killings, prisons and sentences of death. We sound like
morons.

 Paul

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Norbert Preining]

Hi Enrico,

> raised issues instead of listening to them. In particular, this part of
> your reply to the antiharassment team, that you chose to leave out when
> reposting it here on -project:

I left it out because I wrote exactly this in my email to you, that I
want to keep the answer about who started the discussion private -
because I think it is fair that I know who started the expulsion of me,
but I agreed to not publicize it.

And I thought (stupid me!) I would get an answer from your.
I still didn't get one single answer. Also not to the following
question about who started this procedure.

> > Question 4: several people feel uncomfortable
> > -
> > If you consider the harassment team different from a hidden military
> > court or a gulag general, I expect that those who have deposed complains
> > do not remain anonymous. Please let me know who initiated this
> > procedure.

So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general?
The expulsion procedure as set out by the constitution, the DAM
delegation and DAM description has not been followed. Proper channels
have not been taken. The accused has not been heard. Just as a reminder,
here is the proper procedure:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg5.html

Has the Debian Secretary been asked for Q? Have I been informed *before*
the procedure? Did I have an option to answer and get supporting voices
from fellow DD?

You and DAM have decided, ruled, and delivered a verdict outside of any
regulated and agreed upon procedures within Debian. If I am wrong here,
please show us here and everyone where the procedure you have taken has
been decided within Debian, and that means with agreement of the Debian
Developers. Has there been an GR about this procedure?

What do you consider yourself and AH Team? Above the rules?

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. +JAIST +TeX Live +Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Enrico Zini]

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:13:53AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:

> For those not aware of the issue, here is *my* view onto the events.
> AH and DAM can answer and provide their own interpretation. I will try
> to stay as objective as it is possible for me.

As written in the message we sent you, none of the issues linked, taken
singularly, would be worth of taking action, but taken all together they
represent a long recurring trend.

The reason we took action is because:

> our impression is that you seem to ignore the issues raised
> while attacking the people who raise them.

That is not an acceptable behaviour in a community that is built by the
cooperation of a diverse range of skills and people.

Also, we could see, while considering the situation, that this kind of
trend is not just a thing of the past. As we wrote here:

> On nov 27, the antiharassment team removed your blog post from Planet
> again, because of yet another reiteration of these problems. Your
> response, even though it was framed like asking questions, again it read
> as an accusation to the people, a delegated team in this case, who, once
> again, called you out.
>
> On dec 4, you have unilaterally readded yourself to Planet Debian.

This was another, recent repetition of the trend of attacking the people who
raised issues instead of listening to them. In particular, this part of
your reply to the antiharassment team, that you chose to leave out when
reposting it here on -project:

> Question 4: several people feel uncomfortable
> -
> If you consider the harassment team different from a hidden military
> court or a gulag general, I expect that those who have deposed complains
> do not remain anonymous. Please let me know who initiated this
> procedure.


I hope this helps make sense of our decision.


Enrico

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think
> that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not
> need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs)
> do.
> 
> Moreover, when the DM status was proposed in 2007, it was not thought as
> a way of punishment for DDs.  Even if one of a thousand DM has this
> status because of demotion, I think that this completely changes the
> balance on how this status serves our project.  Instead of being a
> positive way towards joining more formally, it becomes an inferior
> status.
> 
> Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a
> new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that
> needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought.

I fully agree with everything quoted here.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think
> that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not
> need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs)
> do.
> 
> Moreover, when the DM status was proposed in 2007, it was not thought as
> a way of punishment for DDs.  Even if one of a thousand DM has this
> status because of demotion, I think that this completely changes the
> balance on how this status serves our project.  Instead of being a
> positive way towards joining more formally, it becomes an inferior
> status.
I understand it as a consequence of a DD being a full member while a DM
not being a full member but still having some purely packaging-related
rights and not as something someone specially wanted.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Charles Plessy]

Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:13:53AM +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit :
>
> * The demotion to Debian Maintainer is - as far as I read the
>   consitution [3], the delegation of DAM [4], and the DAM Wiki page 
>   about their rights and powers [5], not legit since besides expulsion
>   there is not procedure laid out for demotion, but I refrained from
>   raising this for the sake of peace.

Hi everybody,

I have read so many distrurbing things on this expulsion that I won't
comment on everything, not the least because I am not a native speaker
and worry to make the situation even harder by writing things that can
be misunderstood.

But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think
that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not
need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs)
do.

Moreover, when the DM status was proposed in 2007, it was not thought as
a way of punishment for DDs.  Even if one of a thousand DM has this
status because of demotion, I think that this completely changes the
balance on how this status serves our project.  Instead of being a
positive way towards joining more formally, it becomes an inferior
status.

Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a
new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that
needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy   Illkirch-Graffenstaden, Alsace, France
Debian Med packaging teamhttp://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from work,  https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home,https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Dominik George]

>But we, as a project, need to ensure that there is more transparency
>moving forward. And I think it would be wise to review the way that
>DAM and AH operate. We need to ensure they stick to protocol, and
>are held accountable for the use of their powers.

This!

-nik

Re: Censorship in Debian

[martin f krafft]

Hello project,

It's very sad to read about what's going on.

I know that there's been at least another case, in which DAM and AH
have acted outside their mandate, threatening with project
expulsion, and choosing very selectively with whom they communicate.
I know, because I was being targeted.

Neither DAM nor AH (the same people still active today) made
a single attempt to hear me. None of my e-mails to either DAM or AH
were ever answered.

Instead, DAM ruled a verdict, and influenced other people to the
point that "because DAM ruled" was given as a reason for other
measures. This was an unconstitutional abuse of DAM's powers, and in
the case of AH, the whole mess also bordered on libel. Among others,
the current DPL Chris Lamb promised a review in due time, but
nothing ever happened.

It's not going to be a constructive use of anyone's time to attempt
to establish transparency into issues of the past, and I've
disengaged anyway, as a result.

But we, as a project, need to ensure that there is more transparency
moving forward. And I think it would be wise to review the way that
DAM and AH operate. We need to ensure they stick to protocol, and
are held accountable for the use of their powers.

Thanks for your attention,

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  not-so-proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Norbert Preining]

Hi everyone,

(please Cc me, I am not subscribed to d-p)

first of all thanks to Daniel for bringing this up and standing up for
me, this is very much appreciated.

For those not aware of the issue, here is *my* view onto the events.
AH and DAM can answer and provide their own interpretation. I will try
to stay as objective as it is possible for me.

2018/09/21
I published the post "Sharp did it again" [1] using "it" as pronoun
-same day-
Chris Lamb disabled my blog on Planet based on "it"
2018/09/22
based on suggestions and explanations from others but Lamb I 
update the blog to use "they"
2018/09/24
Chris Lamb re-enables my blog on Planet
2018/11/26
I published the post "On Lars Wirzenius, Fun, and Debian" [2]
2018/11/27
Laura Arjona Reina disables my blog on Planet
2018/11/28
I respond to Laura Arjona Reina's email asking for clarification
due to the explanation being unclear to me (see attached email 1)
2018/12/04
Due to absence of any answer at all, I enable my blog on Planet,
but remove the post about Lars Wirzenius from the respective
RSS feed
2018/12/17
The DAM sends me an email about demotion to Debian Maintainer 
based on a set of emails mostly from 2012-2014 during the
discussions on systemd and coc:
2012: 1 email
2013: 7 emails
2014: 5 emails
2015: 1 email
2016: 0 emails
2017: 2 emails
2018: 2 emails
some of these emails are actually not from me, but these are the
emails used as argumentation (see attached email 2)

Points I consider disturbing:
* AH never answered my questions, and above that I assume that the
  email the called out in their recent "bit from the anti harassement team"
  about being "a harassment of the team" is my email.
  I ask everyone to judge by himself whether my email as attached is to 
  be considered harassment.
* The demotion to Debian Maintainer is - as far as I read the
  consitution [3], the delegation of DAM [4], and the DAM Wiki page 
  about their rights and powers [5], not legit since besides expulsion
  there is not procedure laid out for demotion, but I refrained from
  raising this for the sake of peace.

There are more disturbing things going on where I suspect that members
of Debian have taken unduly influence on procedures concerning me, but
since I don't have proofs I cannot raise them here.


Coming back to the argumentation of DAM, I agree that back in 2012-2014
I have written a few strong emails during the systemd and coc
discussion. Not to defense myself, but I have the feeling that I was not
the only one. Furthermore, most of the emails cited by DAM clearly
predate the CoC, and the emails after installment of the CoC are, in my
opinion just simply frank and staight.

Anyway, this is the status. I invite everyone to form his/her own
opinion. As I posted on the Debian TeX ML, I will not be doing an awful
lot of work for Debian due to this demotion. I still think that Debian
is the best Linux distribution - but *only* due to the excellent work of
its developers.

Best

Norbert

[1] https://www.preining.info/blog/2018/09/sharp-did-it-again/
[2] https://www.preining.info/blog/2018/11/on-lars-wirzenius-fun-and-debian/
[3] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/03/msg1.html
[5] https://wiki.debian.org/DAManager
--
PREINING Norbert   http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. +JAIST +TeX Live +Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
--- Begin Message ---
Dear Laura,

thanks for your email.

To make things clear from the start: Unless explicitely stated below,
I do not consider this email communication private and will publicize it
if need arises. Thanks for your understanding.

Now to the matter at hand. I am a bit surprised that without even one
word of notice you have disabled by blog on Planet Debian. Furthermore,
I consider the explanation of your verdict unclear and bare of any
argumentation, and thus ask you to answer the following questions:

Question 1: persistent pattern of disrespectful communication
-

You state that
... evaluate your long term behaviour, ...
... persistent pattern of disrespectful communication towards
other members of the community.
without providing any evidence. I have been contacted once by Chris Lamb
(in Cc in case you want to verify my statements) about my blog
Sharp did it again [1]
where I used the incorrect pronoun. Within 24h I have updated the blog
  original email by Chris: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:20:22 +0100
  mail about update by me: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 05:09:42 +0900
  second update by me: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 08:29:47 +0900

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Daniel Pocock]

On 24/12/18 10:13, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> On 2018-12-23 20:58:08, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>
>> On 12/21/18 10:02 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> Norbert seems to have stepped back in response:
>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-tex-maint/2018/12/msg00019.html
>> Getting your DD rights being removed from DAM is probably not what you
>> would call a step back in your free will. He was forced to do so.
> I didn't know about that and I have to say it makes me feel disturbed, a big
> time, and yes I'm aware of the most of this story.
>
> I wrote a bit longer post but looks like I kind of self censored it and this 
> is
> not making me happy either.


People asked privately why I'm fighting for Norbert.  I raised this for
everybody who feels this apprehension, it is not just about Norbert.

If anybody else in the community feels any apprehension about what they
can do or say, or communications they received from Debian leadership,
or if anybody feels they have something they can't discuss with the DPL
or AH team at the moment, I would volunteer to speak to you privately
about it.

Maybe Debian can follow a fine example from FSFEland and formally allow
the community to elect a representative, somebody who's mission is to
think of the developers/volunteers first?  My bulletproof vest is still
partly intact from my own efforts to do so in FSFE and I would gladly
put it under somebody else's Christmas tree tonight.  While we elect a
DPL, that role has many of the attributes of a manager/boss, not a
representative and whoever is in the role, their mindset is affected by
that.

Regards,

Daniel

--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Marcin Kulisz]

On 2018-12-23 20:58:08, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/21/18 10:02 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Norbert seems to have stepped back in response:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-tex-maint/2018/12/msg00019.html
> 
> Getting your DD rights being removed from DAM is probably not what you
> would call a step back in your free will. He was forced to do so.

I didn't know about that and I have to say it makes me feel disturbed, a big
time, and yes I'm aware of the most of this story.

I wrote a bit longer post but looks like I kind of self censored it and this is
not making me happy either.
-- 

|_|0|_|  |
|_|_|0|  "Panta rei" |
|0|0|0|  kuLa    |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x686930DD58C338B3
3DF1  A4DF  C732  4688  38BC  F121  6869  30DD  58C3  38B3


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 12/21/18 10:02 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Norbert seems to have stepped back in response:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-tex-maint/2018/12/msg00019.html

Getting your DD rights being removed from DAM is probably not what you
would call a step back in your free will. He was forced to do so.


-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Josh Triplett]

Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Putting the evidence I've seen in a public list would be disrespectful
> and a breach of trust. Nonetheless, I confirm to the community that I
> have seen enough

Then you are being hypocritical by decrying the anti-harrassment team
for keeping reports confidential, and by not extending them the same
trust you expect others to grant you.

I would applaud the anti-harassment team for being as transparent as
they are while respecting the privacy of both reporters and of reported
people (who might manage to improve in the future). And beyond that, as
I understand it, those who are reported and have actions taken to limit
their damage are given plenty of information on the nature of the
offense. What they choose to do with that information is up to them.

Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Also: not wishing to pile on, but I also believe that you linking
> assassinations to the actions of the a-h team is downright toxic and
> you should apologise.
(Agreed.)

Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I regret that people are focusing on that comment and a-h alone.

That is not only not an apology, it's an attempt to shift blame onto
others.