On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:03:09AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:32:15AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:03:56PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Rationale > > > --------- > > > > > > There wasn't a huge amount of discussion about this; mostly people > > > seemed to acquiesce to the way I put it, which is that we need some > > > method for dealing with disruptive behaviour that lies between > > > individuals asking for it to stop and expelling people. > > In all the discussion i have seen about the social comittee, which i > have, as you can imagine, followed with interest, there is something > that disturbs me most. > > All the talks have been about how to elect members, and giving the SoC > individual members the power to quickly take action (suposedly by > warning or temporarily banning folk from lists). > > This is indeed also how most DDs have seen the problem i was involved > with over the last year, and some remarks, particularly those of Anthony > Town about "definitive measures that cannot be contested" are indeed > very disturbing. > > Now, if your governement would be proposing a proposal like what is > currently being proposed, many of you would be off screaming about > police state and repression before prevention, not to mention attacks on > freedom of speach over the censorship powers which have nothing to envy > to the russian governement closing up news agencies or even repression > and censorship from darker times. > > I understand that most of us DDs don't really have much political > conciousness, or most probably don't want to see their own dealings as > being politically dubious, but this is indeed a very very disturbing > path to walk. > > In order to solve social dispute, the first step should always be > mediation, and no, mediation is not trying to talk to the party you > already judged guilty in order to make him be silent, and if this fails > pass out punishement and unilateral judgements. > > The first order of business in a social dispute is communication and > negotiation. If a complaints arise, then the social comittee should > investigate it, speak with both parties involved in the dispute, verify > the veracity of those claims with facts and independent third parties, > and try to discuss. > > Hearing both parties is important, understanding what their grief are, > and trying to find a middle ground acceptable to both. And only if this > really fails, should action be taken. > > Furthermore, the social committee needs to be impartial, which i know > can be difficult, and hiding their discussions in private channels is > not going to help there, and brings again up the ghost of shady dealings > and cabal decision. > > So, what i believe is important in this, is for the social committee to > have a clear mandate to negotiate and mediate first, before using > repressive means, and maybe for each social committee member to take an > oath of impartiality, fairness and will to solve issues in negotiation and > mediation, just like real world judges do. > > This is the only way to bring debian back again on the way to fun and > friendliness, and the way to a police state that ian is proposing, > altough nearer to the habits of DDs, is definitively not the way to go. > > Friendly, > > Sven Luther >
-- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]