Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: Can we just generate that procmail file or at least the section in question? Not easily, no. It's difficult to imagine this presenting a problem. Procmail reads on-disk config on each invocation - it doesn't run as a daemon - and it's trivial to include additional rules files. To wit, INCLUDERC=$HOME/some_esoteric_path/procmail_rules/spam-sources INCLUDERC=$HOME/some_esoteric_path/procmail_rules/coc-violators etc. The code that installs a new version oc coc-violators can doubtless jump through arbitrary hoops to minimize any sort of race - swapping in a newly generated file will be awfully close to atomic in any case. The source for such a file could be as simple as a terminate date and an email address, or it might also include a pointer to the documented CoC abuse. Of course, procmail isn't forgiving in the face of syntax errors, so using an automated tool to help generate correct files can only be a good thing. If the listmaster workload is such that it's not feasible to implement reasonable limits for ban periods using existing mechanisms, then I imagine such a tool would be welcome. I'll be happy to volunteer time to help implement it, although I have no doubt that Ean is way ahead of me here. -- The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. - G. Orwell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014091116.gl16...@blisses.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: Can we just generate that procmail file or at least the section in question? Not easily, no. It's difficult to imagine this presenting a problem. Procmail reads on-disk config on each invocation - it doesn't run as a daemon - and it's trivial to include additional rules files. Generating a file is trivial. Generating the correct file in the correct location so that it is included from the correct procmail file (but not the wrong procmail file!) is not trivial. We have lots of lists, and each list has lots of procmail. That's why the ideal approach does not involve generating procmail. Ean is discussing with listmaster@ to generate script(s) to implement such an interface. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014095932.gi17...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: Can we just generate that procmail file or at least the section in question? Not easily, no. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Do you need [...] [t]ools? Stuff? Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. [...] We have a protractor. -- Neal Stephenson _Anathem_ p320 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140920060811.gz8...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: Also, the concept of lifting bans only on demand creates a black list as a byproduct, and it is strange to imagine such a list in 10 years containing random people who happened to have misbehaved some time ago, of whom we had no news since, but whose names we remember forever. I think that forgetting would make things easier for everybody after a while. Indeed, thanks for the clear words. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140919094254.gb28...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
- Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: I guess that the story is simpler than this: time-limited bans do not seem to be supported natively in Debian's mailing list engine (SmartList), so if one wants to see our listmasters use time-limited bans more often, then somebody has to spend time to implement this function. http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?at -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/15203641.6761411152990482.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
- Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: The actual code may be extremely simple, only two or three lines. It's getting the right lines in the right place in a way that works for the people who are doing the day-to-day work that's the hard part. I hereby do solemnly volunteer to write an coc unban [ADDRESS] command that can be triggered by at. Obviously the parties responsible for empowering me to do this are on this list because they would ban me if I called them mean names. Responsible parties, please let me know where to start reading the code for the existing ban process. I will provide a GIT repo to pull from. Thank you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/23002822.7401411167622170.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: Obviously the parties responsible for empowering me to do this are on this list because they would ban me if I called them mean names. Responsible parties, please let me know where to start reading the code for the existing ban process. There isn't any. You write procmail in the correct configuration file to add a ban. You remove procmail in the correct configuration file to remove the ban. If you're willing to commit to write an appropriate tool that can be called from within a procmail script to implement banning and unbanning on the based of a passed message, then I believe listmaster@ (or at least, I) would be willing to write up a specification for the software. x -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Sometimes I wish I could take back all my mistakes but then I think what if my mother could take back hers? -- a softer world #498 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=498 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140919232823.gx8...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
Can we just generate that procmail file or at least the section in question? We can take this to private email if you like and blog about next steps and or progress. - Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: There isn't any. You write procmail in the correct configuration file to add a ban. You remove procmail in the correct configuration file to remove the ban. If you're willing to commit to write an appropriate tool that can be called from within a procmail script to implement banning and unbanning on the based of a passed message, then I believe listmaster@ (or at least, I) would be willing to write up a specification for the software. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/27733420.7531411176573361.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Jonathan Dowland wrote: However it does presume some statute of limitation on ban length. Don's message earlier in this thread does not indicate any particular ban length in this particular case. It's not clear to me whether this is an indefinite ban, or one subject to review, and in the latter case, whether the ban period is deliberately non-disclosed (and I can see the reasoning for that too, if that's the case, but I don't know that it is). I personally don't have a problem removing bans once someone indicates that they understand why the ban was put in place, and that they are going to avoid that behavior in the future. I generally don't place specific time limits, because I don't believe in punitive action... and also because I'm lazy, and I don't want to promise that I will remember to remove a ban at a specific time without being prompted. The whole purpose of bans and warnings is to stop unwelcome behavior on Debian infrastructure. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila -- Mitch Ratcliffe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140918191355.gk8...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:13:55PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I generally don't place specific time limits, because I don't believe in punitive action... M, I'd consider a ban without length limitation is way more punitive than, say, an x-weeks ban, both being more severe than a warning. The escalation (warning, temporary ban, perma-ban) is what I am used to in most forums/irc channels (and it works quite well). Would you consider this sensible approach for Debian MLs? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140918193447.ga6...@x60s.casa
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:34:47PM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote: On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:13:55PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I generally don't place specific time limits, because I don't believe in punitive action... M, I'd consider a ban without length limitation is way more punitive than, say, an x-weeks ban, both being more severe than a warning. The escalation (warning, temporary ban, perma-ban) is what I am used to in most forums/irc channels (and it works quite well). Would you consider this sensible approach for Debian MLs? s/sensible/a sensible -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140918193923.ga6...@x60s.casa
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Francesco Ariis wrote: On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:13:55PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I generally don't place specific time limits, because I don't believe in punitive action... I'd consider a ban without length limitation is way more punitive than, say, an x-weeks ban, both being more severe than a warning. The escalation (warning, temporary ban, perma-ban) is what I am used to in most forums/irc channels (and it works quite well). If I understand correctly, you're interpreting my lack of specific time limits as placing a permanent ban, which isn't what I mean. By not having time limits, there's no lower bound. The upper bound is when someone contacts listmaster@ and convinces a listmaster that they'll do better, and a listmaster agrees and removes the ban. The time to the upper bound is entirely dependent on the individual in question and their desire to be a contribution to Debian. Would you consider this sensible approach for Debian MLs? This is basically already what we do, but we sometimes jump straight to a ban if the behavior is problematic enough without mitigating factors. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none is possible. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140918203349.gq8...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: limits as placing a permanent ban, which isn't what I mean. By not But what it is. It is a permanent ban that *might* be lifted by listmasters' graciousness. So perpetrators have to beg for redemption. Hail to the King, we are back to what I always claimed, oligarchy. I consider moving our maintainers' lists to a different provider if this is the way Debian works nowadays. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140918220915.gk8...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
Le Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:09:15AM +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit : On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: limits as placing a permanent ban, which isn't what I mean. By not But what it is. It is a permanent ban that *might* be lifted by listmasters' graciousness. So perpetrators have to beg for redemption. I guess that the story is simpler than this: time-limited bans do not seem to be supported natively in Debian's mailing list engine (SmartList), so if one wants to see our listmasters use time-limited bans more often, then somebody has to spend time to implement this function. This is the reason I refrained to suggest it before despite I also think that time-limited bans are better: I am totally unlikely to write this piece of code. This said, I think that time-limited bans would be a progress, since they would make it easier to cool down non-constructive discussions where people are heating up and start to send dozens of emails as failed attempts to release their anger by ranting in others ears. Also, the concept of lifting bans only on demand creates a black list as a byproduct, and it is strange to imagine such a list in 10 years containing random people who happened to have misbehaved some time ago, of whom we had no news since, but whose names we remember forever. I think that forgetting would make things easier for everybody after a while. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140918235212.ga12...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
Norbert Preining schrieb: On Mon, 08 Sep 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: This is by design; the people who make decisions in Debian are the people who do the work. Wow, so you are telling me that I am not doing work? You are doing *other* work. And where you are doing the work, you get to decide how you do it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ldp.1409131023.1...@landroval.ancalagon.de
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
* Don Armstrong d...@debian.org, 2014-09-05, 10:04: If anything more than a warning occurs, it is announced on debian-private@, which enables Debian Developers to review the actions that listmaster@ has taken, and override them via GR. Let's be frank: GR is such a heavyweight process, that it's impractical for overriding small decisions like this one. The little cynic in me says the GR wouldn't happen even if majority of DDs thought this ban was unwarranted. Why waste your precious time fighting, so that a guy you've never heard before would have the right to deliver bad jokes? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908093029.ga8...@jwilk.net
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Don Armstrong d...@debian.org, 2014-09-05, 10:04: If anything more than a warning occurs, it is announced on debian-private@, which enables Debian Developers to review the actions that listmaster@ has taken, and override them via GR. Let's be frank: GR is such a heavyweight process, that it's impractical for overriding small decisions like this one. This is by design; the people who make decisions in Debian are the people who do the work. The little cynic in me says the GR wouldn't happen even if majority of DDs thought this ban was unwarranted. Why waste your precious time fighting, so that a guy you've never heard before would have the right to deliver bad jokes? All it takes to start a GR is 5 DDs, and 15 DDs to meet quorum. If there aren't 5 DDs who are willing to make the DDs, and 15 DDs who are willing to vote, then it's unlikely that there was actually a majority. After all, for at least the listmaster team, there are already more than 5 DDs on the team... -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Them as can do has to do for them as can't. And someone has to speak up for them as have no voices. -- Grandma Aching in _The Wee Free Men_ by Terry Pratchett p227 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908145932.ga21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: Let's be frank: GR is such a heavyweight process, that it's impractical for overriding small decisions like this one. This is by design; the people who make decisions in Debian are the people who do the work. Wow, so you are telling me that I am not doing work? And all the other fellow DDs who are not listmasters, debian-project, or whatever the current list or ranks is? All the long list is *just*not*doing*work*? Are you serious? So this is equal under equals...? Go away, quickly, please! All it takes to start a GR is 5 DDs, and 15 DDs to meet quorum. If there aren't 5 DDs who are willing to make the DDs, and 15 DDs who are willing to vote, then it's unlikely that there was actually a majority. You don't get the point, really, you don't *want* to I guess. Jakub is correct: Let us look at the most recent, where I opposed. I don't know the guy. I think he is a jerk. But I am still opposed to the ban. But I surely won't go to the length of a GR. And then you tell me the people who make decisions in Debian are the people who do the work No, it is the people who make decisions in Debian are the people who are in power positions That is all. If you live in the illusion that it is different, I envy you for that. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908150858.ga25...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at writes: On Mon, 08 Sep 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: Let's be frank: GR is such a heavyweight process, that it's impractical for overriding small decisions like this one. This is by design; the people who make decisions in Debian are the people who do the work. Wow, so you are telling me that I am not doing work? He is saying nothing of the sort. He is saying that the people that do the work (in this case, the work of managing the lists) are the people that make the decisions about that particular segment of Debian. Any other arangement would be so cumbersome as to ensure that the people doing the work would soon give up in frustration and then nobody would be doing that work. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| 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 pgpWsWPHjRF1G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: Mailing list bans are not done in public to avoid harming the reputation of the individuals banned. If the individual in question wants the ban to be disclosed publicly, they can email listmaster@, and we will do so. Zenaan Harkness requested that the details of his ban be made public. Because of the following messages, I have blocked the posting ability of Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net to debian-project. http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/caosgnssq50orj-m8zp27by8jsey9pb-b3rsqetebwngfels...@mail.gmail.com http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/CAOsGNSQQM7+CqNo4GbYK373ZyBNpGGJVzfKKqaR=7j_igdm...@mail.gmail.com Because of http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/CAOsGNSQvW45v90Lz17wXt2Mtzj=4J9z1ox+2f6LArju=okk...@mail.gmail.com http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/caosgnsqw4mmno08fsaexhseaudz+tiu9kyzz65fuwqnitja...@mail.gmail.com I have extended this to all Debian mailing lists. 1. The first set of messages quoted contain a transparent analogy to male anatomy whose entire point is to offend, and contains no actual discussion related to the Code of Conduct or the discussion at issue. 2. The second set of messages indicates that the individual in question is primarily interested in trolling Debian and associated mailing lists. With regards to the ban procedure, complaints were made to listmaster@; I determined that the were serious enough to warrant a ban without prior warning. Other listmasters were queried, and there were no objections. The ban may be lifted by listmaster@ at some point in the future, or may be overridden by Debian Developers via GR. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com A Democracy lead by politicians and political parties, fails. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140908050147.gy21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
CoC / procedural abuse
I received a rather dismayed email from Zenaan Harkness last night, saying that he's been blocked from posting to any Debian mailing lists as a result of his emails to debian-project regarding the recent CoC discussion. While I thought his points were entirely valid - the actual offense noted was never brought up, and frankly, the context here was important to understanding the nature and the character of the complaint - the larger point is that evidently there is quiet censorship of dissenting opinion, and presumably this censorship was itself skirting the bounds of the CoC. The relevant section, in its entirety: 6. In case of problems While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you may reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However, regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, it should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than that they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion. Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see the page on Debian's organizational structure. It's difficult to think that Zenaan hasn't been a net positive in the discussion. Looking through the list in my mail folder, including the email that's been expunged from the list archives, there is only one email that includes things that could be considered particularly poor form in public, of eight posts in the thread. Was there process involved with his expulsion, or did the person who told him he had been blocked acting alone? Is there record of this action? Debian solicits donations and on its face tries to be a public organization - it exists to promote social good and to enhance the direct experience of freedom for computer users - and it's extremely difficult for me to understand how what's happened is even vaguely appropriate. Frankly, I think that unless there is documented process followed and a record of the administrative action - if this was a person in power acting alone - the person who banned him should be removed from any position of administrative power. There is ample room for technical contribution to Debian without this sort of despotism. I'll note that one of the things that dismayed Zenaan the most was that this action was taken in private, which is wholly at odds with what Debian is about. Having contributed a not-trivial amount of money to SPI, earmarked for Debian, I might have an unreasonable expectation regarding its transparent operation, but I have this expectation nonetheless, and I want all of us to know what has happened here. I do *not* want a private response - that would also be inappropriate. The people who need a response are the ones who have contributed to the discussion at hand. -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.org Ewige Blumenkraft! awake ? sleep : random() 2 ? dream : sleep; -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905163801.gw3...@blisses.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: Was there process involved with his expulsion, or did the person who told him he had been blocked acting alone? The process for temporary or permanent bans on Debian mailing lists is: 1) Someone makes a complaint to listmaster@ 2) A listmaster reviews the complaint, and either decides that a) the complaint is unwarranted b) warrants a warning c) warrants a ban. If the complaint warrants a ban or warning, the opinions of other listmasters is canvassed for a short period of time, and if there are no objections, the action proceeds. If anything more than a warning occurs, it is announced on debian-private@, which enables Debian Developers to review the actions that listmaster@ has taken, and override them via GR. Is there record of this action? Bans on Debian mailing lists are announced to debian-private, and this ban was announced there as well. I'll note that one of the things that dismayed [...] the most was that this action was taken in private, which is wholly at odds with what Debian is about. Mailing list bans are not done in public to avoid harming the reputation of the individuals banned. If the individual in question wants the ban to be disclosed publicly, they can email listmaster@, and we will do so. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Rule 6: If violence wasn't your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it. -- Howard Tayler _Schlock Mercenary_ March 13th, 2005 http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20050313.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905170419.go21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:04:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: If the complaint warrants a ban or warning, the opinions of other listmasters is canvassed for a short period of time, and if there are no objections, the action proceeds. If anything more than a warning occurs, it is announced on debian-private@, which enables Debian Developers to review the actions that listmaster@ has taken, and override them via GR. Alright. Thank you. I would like to see some public process for review machinery, and I'd like to see a requirement that rather than no objections there be a quorum for a banning decision, but that these actions are recorded in debian-private seems sufficient. Mailing list bans are not done in public to avoid harming the reputation of the individuals banned. If the individual in question wants the ban to be disclosed publicly, they can email listmaster@, and we will do so. I'll pass this along. It seems reasonable. Thanks. -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.orgEwige Blumenkraft! (if awake 'sleep (aref #(sleep dream) (random 2))) -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905173029.gx3...@blisses.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:38:01PM -0400, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: I received a rather dismayed email from Zenaan Harkness last night, saying that he's been blocked from posting to any Debian mailing lists as a result of his emails to debian-project regarding the recent CoC discussion. While I thought his points were entirely valid - the actual offense noted was never brought up, and frankly, the context here was important to understanding the nature and the character of the complaint - the larger point is that evidently there is quiet censorship of dissenting opinion, and presumably this censorship was itself skirting the bounds of the CoC. Debian does not ban people from the mailing lists for expressing dissenting opinions. If Zenaan told you this was the cause of his ban, then he has deliberately misled you. Of course, you may have arrived at this conclusion not because of something he said, but because of the information vacuum around the ban. This is also a trade-off in not announcing bans publicly. In addition to Don's explanation of the current policy, you can find discussion in the debian-project archive explaining how this policy was arrived at: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/msg00090.html -- 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 Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.org writes: Alright. Thank you. I would like to see some public process for review machinery, and I'd like to see a requirement that rather than no objections there be a quorum for a banning decision, but that these actions are recorded in debian-private seems sufficient. For the record, we as a project previously discussed and rejected those approaches to bans. I think there's general consensus that we'd much rather the listmasters just take care of it and only get other people involved if there are objections. Being banned from mailing lists is not exactly a major penalty or massive interference with someone's life, nor does it cause immediate harm, so having an after-the-fact appeal process seems sufficient. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4txeo46@hope.eyrie.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:24:59AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Debian does not ban people from the mailing lists for expressing dissenting opinions. If Zenaan told you this was the cause of his ban, then he has deliberately misled you. No, no, he didn't suggest that. His concern was that it was done privately. I read the email thread you suggested and I am sorry that the result wasn't a public list of links to the emails that led to banning. That seemed to avoid reputation damage from web crawling but to provide a welcome transparency into the process. I took particular interest in this: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/msg00134.html I value the notion of forgiveness and the idea that someone can start fresh after a transgression. I also value the notion of warning - in this case, it wasn't my impression that Zenaan was told use of this variety of language will result in banning. It was my strong impression that he was caught entirely by surprise. In addition to Don's explanation of the current policy, you can find discussion in the debian-project archive explaining how this policy was arrived at: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/msg00090.html Was there a non-public action that resulted in the current policy? I didn't see anything like consensus about anything resembling the current policy. The suggestions about a public list of current bans consisting of links to the emails in question seemed the most popular option. Something that wasn't brought up was the fairly clear utility of such a list in showing what bans are old enough to warrant clearing. It just strikes me that we can do better, and I'd like to see us do so. I value Debian as the most relevant vehicle for distributing and promoting free software in existence by a very wide margin. The community already values many important things and acts to do the right thing in most cases. One place where we fall down is in our application of force. PS: I saw we here, but I have no formal relationship with the project. I speak as an interested long-time Debian user and free software advocate. -- Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140906043644.ga3...@blisses.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.org writes: It just strikes me that we can do better, and I'd like to see us do so. Personally, I think everything you've proposed so far would be doing worse than what we're doing now in terms of the desired outcome here, which is to keep our mailing lists useful, productive project resources and places where we can accomplish our goals. The Debian project mailing lists are not free speech or public debate forums, nor are they the place to try to make one's point by trolling with juvenile sexual references. Given the messages that Zenaan subsequently bcc'd to my personal inbox, I'm quite confident that the listmasters made the right decision in this case. I value Debian as the most relevant vehicle for distributing and promoting free software in existence by a very wide margin. The community already values many important things and acts to do the right thing in most cases. One place where we fall down is in our application of force. Preventing someone from sending mail to a project mailing list is not force by any sensible definition of the word. It's a rather mild action with little impact on someone's life, particularly if that person is not actively involved in Debian development. Given that, I think we should be optimizing for lightweight process and useful mailing lists instead of some sort of full-blown judicial inquiry. As I've mentioned in previous discussions of this topic, I'm quite comfortable with the thought that lightweight process means that I could get banned for an ill-conceived message even though I *am* actively involved in Debian development. I would happily wait out the ban period while using it as an opportunity to reflect on what I said and why people found it sufficiently irritating to complain about it and for the listmasters to agree. I certainly don't think some sort of complex public process should be involved. The current approach seems far superior. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3zpl4tn@hope.eyrie.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
* Mason Loring Bliss (ma...@blisses.org) wrote: It just strikes me that we can do better, and I'd like to see us do so. I value Debian as the most relevant vehicle for distributing and promoting free software in existence by a very wide margin. The community already values many important things and acts to do the right thing in most cases. One place where we fall down is in our application of force. We used to simply allow this kind of language, which resulted in numerous cases of individuals being uncomfortable working with the Debian community and either refusing to participate on the lists or leaving the project entirely, and a reputation was established that Debian was not a friendly or open community. We *are* doing better, from where I sit. It's unfortunate that someone was surprised that we're actually serious about these policies- but that's hardly justification to not have those policies or to relax them. PS: I saw we here, but I have no formal relationship with the project. I speak as an interested long-time Debian user and free software advocate. We certainly appreciate your interest in this topic and concrete suggestions for changes are welcome from any party, though you will need to find DDs who agree to put forward a GR to have the policy changed. If the issue is that the individual banned would like to participate again on the lists then I believe there is a process which can be followed to reinstate them. Having not been in that situation, I'm not aware of what it is, but I'd suggest the individual follow up with listmaster@ for further information. I do expect it would involve, in part, agreeing to following the CoC and not using inappropriate language. If that's not acceptable then I don't know that there's much else to discuss at this point in time. My 2c as a random (not terribly involved :/) DD. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
