Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On 18 April 2018 at 23:08, Lars Wirzeniuswrote: > > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > name for a team that deals with this. On 19 April 2018 at 02:17, Ian Jackson wrote: > > This group would: [snipped] see [0] On 19 April 2018 at 02:31, Laura Arjona Reina wrote: > > If we want a body that can enforce certain rules, I would go to > "social committee" (as its analogue "technical committee"). > > If we want a contact point that gives advice ans ensures that complains > or a report arrives to the corresponding body (similar to now), my name > suggestion would be"Anti-harassment and Fair Treatment Contact Office". > > I wouldn't drop the anti-harassment word because its negative load raises > awareness and sends a clear message. I always understood harassment as > not only sexual, but any (repeated) abuse in power relationships. If > that's not the common understanding, we may need to add "anti-bullying". On 19 April 2018 at 20:00, Chris Lamb wrote: > > I would agree that the current name for the Anti-Harrassment team > is sub-optimal and that names & words are uniquely powerful tools > at our disposal. > > I can think of many historical examples in Debian where they were, > alas, not given enough consideration at the time. > > However, I can't help but feel that we are distracting ourselves > from the more important and initial questions of what the remit or > powers of this enhanced/supplemental team might be. > > Indeed, the very fact that such "name framing" is so powerful is > likely to handicap this very discussion (which started at [0] > AFAICT) in that it can put off people who feel — and I'm uncertain > how to phrase it here — "de-framed" or otherwise put-off from > contributing by a suggestion. > [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/04/msg00024.html This is an interesting discussion. I waited a while before speaking, to avoid "handicapping" it. It is not easy to balance uninhibited discussion of ideas, while also keeping the discussion on-topic. I am not a Debian insider, but I admire and care deeply about the Debian project for many years. So I read this thread carefully and I offer these thoughts ... In any idealistic project, it is inevitable that there will be conflicting ideas. Conflict can feel scary, but usually less so if we are not facing it alone. I suggest it could be an improvement if Debian can create *one* general point of contact to assist *all* social issues between collaborators, before they escalate into harmful discord. This point of contact could be used by any person seeking to contact a team capable of providing assistance to interact with any other person on any matters affecting the project. For example, a developer seeking assistance to improve collaboration with another developer. For example, a conference attendee uncomfortable with the behaviour of others and not knowing how to handle the situation. The minimum function of this team would be to assist and support all parties involved with the *process* of reaching a resolution. Yes "name framing" is powerful and it might inhibit some people from joining the discussion. On the other hand: naming things is hard, name discussion is part of a valuable and complex brainstorming process, a suitable name might encourage people to join the discussion, and help everyone think more about it. Also, if this team would be given a name that "de-frames" anyone, then that would be an unfortunate failure from the beginning :) The project could consider positive naming words that might be useful, for example: co-operation collaboration social assistance social interaction A combination of postive and anti-negative words might provide the percieved benefits of both (see quotes above). For example: The Debian Collaboration & Anti-Harassment Team And this one team could be reached by use more than one email alias, for example: anti-harassment-t...@debian.org collaboration-t...@debian.org These are not necessarily my favourite suggestions, rather I offer them to demonstrate how a suitable name might be created. Thank you, everyone involved, for all your work on Debian.
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Well, this conversation that is very important and relevant for me, reaches me in a bad moment. So expuse my slow replies, please. On 18/04/18 17:17, Ian Jackson wrote: > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): >> "Debian emotional support group", maybe. > > I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting. At > the very least I need to be much clearer. I actually think that both your proposal, and the current a-h, serve a role that can be described as emotional support, and there is nothing insulting about that. Emotional support is essential for a healthy community, sometimes just having somebody to listen to your rant can help a lot towards solving problems. I am not saying that we are currently able to do this (no personpower!), but I find it an important part of such an entity. For years I have been parroting about the need to take care of Debian's most important assent: its people. And I believe this is one very important way of doing so. >> But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of >> what the group is reponsible for. > This group would: Except for a couple of things -and to the best of my knowledge- the anti-harrassment team has been doing what you describe here, I will comment below on the exceptions. >by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper >team would not be expected to make its own enquiries and would >normally be expected to follow the recommendation. Currently, the gatekeeper has the final say. I think that for DAM I agree with Ganneff in that it makes sense it stays like this. Maybe you could give more powers for less drastic actions, such as temporary bans on certain media, etc. > * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave, how to complain, >and write down its own processes. We have a Code of conduct, which goes a long way towards this. > * The new group would have a foundational document which would >explicitly give it authority to do all of the above. This would be a delegation, I understand. -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:46:03PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > If there would be one clear rule, I´d say: Never ever attack a person. > Harmlessness with each other goes a long, long way. > > Wrongdoing someone who probably did something that did not serve the > project or another person, i.e. did something "wrong", just continues > the hurting cycle. And even "wrong" or "right" is just an arbitrary > judgment. Indeed think "I am right and the other is wrong" is a pattern > that fuels threads like the one I think this discussion relates to. Its > also a game that can be played till the end of time. Only exit: One > party lets go of blaming the other party (as if there would be different > parties to begin with but that is another story). > > There is no wrongdoer, there are just human beings or… souls who play > the game of human experience. Thanks for writing all of this, Martin. I very much agree, even though I too often fail/miss this myself. "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- cheers, Holger, with apologies to those I failed to in my life... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Colin Watson - 19.04.18, 01:42: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem > > that possibly would have to be removed from the project? > > > > If so I heavily disagree with that. > > It's an action the project has had to take a few times before, and > it's probably worthwhile for that sort of inevitably very stressful > situation to take advantage of the judgement of several experienced > mediators (or whatever term we end up with) to decide whether it's in > fact the right course of action. I agree that this can be the case. Like in the countries we live in. There are behaviors that justify putting a person into prison at least temporarily to make it impossible for the person to do it again. > > I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior > > of a person and the person him/herself. > > This is indeed very true and important to keep in mind, but it doesn't > mean that the project or its members should have to tolerate abusive > behaviour indefinitely. > > I mean, if your main point is that we should describe the behaviour as > the problem rather than the person, then that seems like a laudable > practice. Just let's not kid ourselves that every situation can be > resolved without exclusionary measures. Yes, that was my intention here. Thanks, -- Martin
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Dear fellow developers, > > That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas: > > What about [..] I would agree that the current name for the Anti-Harrassment team is sub-optimal and that names & words are uniquely powerful tools at our disposal. I can think of many historical examples in Debian where they were, alas, not given enough consideration at the time. However, I can't help but feel that we are distracting ourselves from the more important and initial questions of what the remit or powers of this enhanced/supplemental team might be. Indeed, the very fact that such "name framing" is so powerful is likely to handicap this very discussion (which started at [0] AFAICT) in that it can put off people who feel — and I'm uncertain how to phrase it here — "de-framed" or otherwise put-off from contributing by a suggestion. [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/04/msg00024.html Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On 15011 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: > * Where appropriate, recommend action to: DAM, TC, listmaster, IRC >operators, DPL. Information about the situation would be provided >by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper >team would not be expected to make its own enquiries and would >normally be expected to follow the recommendation. Recommend an action, but the gatekeeper is expected to follow will in practice turn out to be a "they took the decision, the rest must follow". Not good at all, it basically merges the power of all gatekeepers into one team. And from past experience in my roles, multiple times over, I tell you that the pressure and feelings around the actual "final action" is nothing good, nothing one wants to give others. Especially if you take DAM and as such membership in our community of Developers it gets highly emotional and draining. So i think there needs to be different ways of going on, depending on what action. A "don't post on mailing lists for a while", or "please refrain from uploading package XY", even technically enforced, is way different to "goodbye DD state, come back in 3 years and we see if you behave better". Let this new team make a summary of what the problem is, what they tried (and maybe how they see it fail) and then invoke "the higher body", but let that higher body decide on the action. For stuff like list bans or upload bans that may well be just a "right, do it". Obviously when that team goes to one of the gatekeepers it is expected they tried all the usual "easy" actions of trying to solve the problems at hand already, and the gatekeeper shouldnt redo all of those steps. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > > name for a team that deals with this. > > That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas: What about def...@debian.org ? You write to them when you are about to explode and need help to not explode. Or need help because someone else is going to make you explode. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem that > possibly would have to be removed from the project? > > If so I heavily disagree with that. It's an action the project has had to take a few times before, and it's probably worthwhile for that sort of inevitably very stressful situation to take advantage of the judgement of several experienced mediators (or whatever term we end up with) to decide whether it's in fact the right course of action. Most of the time, of course, there are usually better answers. Expulsion is no fun for anyone. But in the past some members of the project have turned out to be abusive in ways that were exceptionally serious or persistent or both, and I'm sure it will happen again in the future, and in such cases it's better to expel them than for everyone else to suffer their behaviour. I think I would prefer the final decision for that kind of thing to remain where it is now, with DAM (though of course that's easy for me to say from the outside), but since it's usually the most serious step in an escalating sequence of behaviour, a team whose responsibility it is to try to resolve and de-escalate conflict and who may well already have been involved would surely have valuable input. > I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior of > a person and the person him/herself. This is indeed very true and important to keep in mind, but it doesn't mean that the project or its members should have to tolerate abusive behaviour indefinitely. I mean, if your main point is that we should describe the behaviour as the problem rather than the person, then that seems like a laudable practice. Just let's not kid ourselves that every situation can be resolved without exclusionary measures. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Hi Tincho, > Currently, it can only give recommendations, but it is not void Mm, but just to be 100% clear, the team could naturally be granted additional powers — we need not consider the status quo to be the permanent state of affairs. (It could also be renamed too but as you can see from elsewhere in this thread, that is... problematic.) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Ian Jackson - 18.04.18, 19:23: > The answer is, carrot: advertising that the alternative route has a > possibility of delivering something like what an angry person actually > thinks they want - punishment for the wrongdoer. > > And, of course, stick: if you post to d-devel anyway then your own > behaviour will be scrutinised by that some body, and will be > officially looked on unfavourably (rather than just get you dogpiled). Whoa. I do not believe in any of that. Public shaming and/or other forms of punishment is not going to help here. The other way around: One of the threads I think this discussion relates to is full with shaming and blaming each other… with the result of that clearly visible: at least one package maintainer orphaning packages and probably even leaving the project. If there would be one clear rule, I´d say: Never ever attack a person. Harmlessness with each other goes a long, long way. Wrongdoing someone who probably did something that did not serve the project or another person, i.e. did something "wrong", just continues the hurting cycle. And even "wrong" or "right" is just an arbitrary judgment. Indeed think "I am right and the other is wrong" is a pattern that fuels threads like the one I think this discussion relates to. Its also a game that can be played till the end of time. Only exit: One party lets go of blaming the other party (as if there would be different parties to begin with but that is another story). There is no wrongdoer, there are just human beings or… souls who play the game of human experience. -- Martin
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Ian Jackson - 18.04.18, 18:17: > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > > "Debian emotional support group", maybe. > > I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting. At > the very least I need to be much clearer. > > > But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of > > what the group is reponsible for. > > This group would: > > * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian >contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person. general comment: Your suggestions go way beyond of what I think is appropriate. > * Resolution might include simply informal discussions and >reconciliation. It might involve formal apologies, usually private > but perhaps public. It might involve preventative measures (intended > to limit the damage done); punative disciplinary measures (intended > to deter); and exclusionary disciplinary measures (intended to remove > a problem from the community or part of it). It might involve a Did I get this right that you think that a person can be a problem that possibly would have to be removed from the project? If so I heavily disagree with that. I think its crucial to make a clear distinction between the behavior of a person and the person him/herself. In discussions on mailing list as well as for any team that deals with mediation and emotional support (without the notion that emotional support for a person means something bad or negative about the person who receives the support). > formal transfer of one or more forms of authority held by some of the > disputants. […] -- Martin
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Lars Wirzenius - 18.04.18, 15:08: > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: > > I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with > > these issues. > > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > name for a team that deals with this. I think what would be beneficial here is more along the lines of mediation. Thanks, -- Martin
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people > involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to > debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever > prevent that friction. Indeed. My point of view arises from considering what might induce such people to try a different approach. The answer is, carrot: advertising that the alternative route has a possibility of delivering something like what an angry person actually thinks they want - punishment for the wrongdoer. And, of course, stick: if you post to d-devel anyway then your own behaviour will be scrutinised by that some body, and will be officially looked on unfavourably (rather than just get you dogpiled). I'm going to let other people drive this conversation for a while. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
El 18 de abril de 2018 17:59:38 CEST, Gunnar Wolfescribió: >Lars Wirzenius dijo [Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:08:24PM +0300]: >> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: >> > I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with >these >> > issues. >> >> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem >> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't >> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was >> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve >> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". >> >> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong >> name for a team that deals with this. > >This topic was brought up at the A-H BoF in Montreal. Everybody thinks >A-H's name is wrong for many reasons, but no better-suited name has >yet been suggested; in my view, A-H is far from being a team only to >deal with harassment (which would make it mostly, although not purely, >a sexism-prevention-oriented group), but should be able to work in >"hard" social interactions such as what sparked this set of threads. > If we want a body that can enforce certain rules, I would go to "social committee" (as its analogue "technical committee"). If we want a contact point that gives advice ans ensures that complains or a report arrives to the corresponding body (similar to now), my name suggestion would be"Anti-harassment and Fair Treatment Contact Office". I wouldn't drop the anti-harassment word because its negative load raises awareness and sends a clear message. I always understood harassment as not only sexual, but any (repeated) abuse in power relationships. If that's not the common understanding, we may need to add "anti-bullying". >But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people >involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to >debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever >prevent that friction. +1 Or at least I would like that the conversation goes at a slower pace. To leave ourselves (all of us) time to think, calm down, listen and empathycise. My 2 cents. -- Laura Arjona Reina https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona Sent with K-9 mail
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 17:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > > "Debian emotional support group", maybe. > > I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting. At > the very least I need to be much clearer. Insulting? *sigh* > This group would: > > * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian >contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person. You're seem to be talking about something entirely different than what I had in mind. You're also proposing something that I find patronising and sorely lacking in oversight. > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:17:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > This group would: > * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave [...] > * The new group would have a foundational document which would >explicitly give it authority to do all of the above. this would be horrible. we are *diverse* project, from all kinds of backgrounds. thought- or behaviour police is evil, or imperialistic at best. I know you meant this well the road to hell is paved with good intentions. -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:55:03 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 15:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > > > name for a team that deals with this. > > That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas: > "Debian emotional support group", maybe. > But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of > what the group is reponsible for. Ack. I think that's the main point. It seems that we're having this discussion every second year, roughly, which seems to indicate that we need "something". And it seems to me that what we're struggling with is to define what this "something" really is. I found Ian's brainstorming about possible names in the previous email quite instructive because the names and his comments on them show the spectrum of possible "somethings" quite well: Are we looking for a court which rules on violations of rules; a counseling body for contributors who want to get advice in unpleasant situations; a mediating/conflict management instituation for helping multiple parties who have a controversy; etc.? IOW: Are we looking for "judges", "psychologists", "social workers", etc.? Or: As Lars said (and I extend, if I may): What should the responsibilities, tasks, and powers of such a team be? Ian explained his ideas ("disputes/conflict", "promote healing", "disciplinary mechanism/decisions") in his thread starter. Maybe we can go back there and try to find a common view before thinking about existing insitutions, names for the new one, etc. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Jerry Lee Lewis: Big Legged Woman signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > "Debian emotional support group", maybe. I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting. At the very least I need to be much clearer. > But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of > what the group is reponsible for. This group would: * Receive reports of bad behaviour on the part of Debian contributors, in whatever forum or venue including in person. Bad behaviour includes but is not limited to: harassment; exceeding any form of authority (eg, package hijack); persistent or severe rudeness; blocking others' work without reasonable justification and adequate communication. * Handle matters in private (except in very exceptional cases). * Where appropriate, facilitate, mediate and/or conciliate, in the hope that the problem can be resolved by better communication. * Where appropriate, make judgements about the behaviour of relevant parties, and express those judgements to the parties in the hope of influencing them. * Where appropriate, recommend action to: DAM, TC, listmaster, IRC operators, DPL. Information about the situation would be provided by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper team would not be expected to make its own enquiries and would normally be expected to follow the recommendation. * Write and publish guidelines for how to behave, how to complain, and write down its own processes. * Resolution might include simply informal discussions and reconciliation. It might involve formal apologies, usually private but perhaps public. It might involve preventative measures (intended to limit the damage done); punative disciplinary measures (intended to deter); and exclusionary disciplinary measures (intended to remove a problem from the community or part of it). It might involve a formal transfer of one or more forms of authority held by some of the disputants. * The new group would have a foundational document which would explicitly give it authority to do all of the above. * All of the above is without prejudice to the continuing rights of listmaster and other forum operators to take action when they think it appropriate. * Where the dispute includes a technical question about the behaviour of software, the dispute team would firstly try to get people to be able to discuss it constructively. If that failed to produce agreement, the disputes team would say who was the person whose decision it was. If the other side wish they may refer the technical question to the TC. The behaviour of the participants during the TC conversdation would be monitored by the disputes group and if necessary the disputes group would be able to have the discussion suspended or some participant(s) blocked. Ian.
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > 2. You are suggesting mediation. Yes. It has been my experience that many of the occasional flareups in Debian have at their root a failure of communication between one or more parties which has been escalated instead of mediated. > Mediation is certainly *one* part of what is needed, but also > *conciliation* and *arbitration*. I don't expect the adversarial process to resolve our occasional breakdowns in communication. At most it will produce winners and losers. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com It was said that life was cheap in Ankh-Morpork. This was, of course, completely wrong. Life was often very expensive; you could get death for free. -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p25
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Lars Wirzenius dijo [Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:08:24PM +0300]: > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: > > I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these > > issues. > > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > name for a team that deals with this. This topic was brought up at the A-H BoF in Montreal. Everybody thinks A-H's name is wrong for many reasons, but no better-suited name has yet been suggested; in my view, A-H is far from being a team only to deal with harassment (which would make it mostly, although not purely, a sexism-prevention-oriented group), but should be able to work in "hard" social interactions such as what sparked this set of threads. But my critique to Ian's original point stands: As long as the people involved in said "hard" social interactions post their messages to debian-devel or debian-whatever, no conflict-prevention-body will ever prevent that friction. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline, name
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:56:41AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > >Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > >>Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem > >>to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't > >>happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was > >>offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve > >>any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". > >> > >>This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > >>name for a team that deals with this. > > > >That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas: > > > >all @debian.org > > trouble too vague, also negative > > behaviour seems somehow hostile, also vague > > conduct seems somehow hostile, also vague > > appeals too strongly advertises judicial function > > arbitration too strongly advertises judicial function > > upset can minimise and subjectify bad actions > > conflictvery negative > > resolution too vague but at least positive > > reconciliation not attractive to complaints who want action > > dispute[s] maybe? > > mediation? > elders used by tribes, group of elder/older, because their exprience counsel as counselor Deanna Troi from Star Trek Next Generation Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong name for a team that deals with this. That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas: all @debian.org trouble too vague, also negative behaviour seems somehow hostile, also vague conduct seems somehow hostile, also vague appeals too strongly advertises judicial function arbitration too strongly advertises judicial function upset can minimise and subjectify bad actions conflictvery negative resolution too vague but at least positive reconciliation not attractive to complaints who want action dispute[s] maybe? mediation?
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 15:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem > > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't > > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was > > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve > > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". > > > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > > name for a team that deals with this. > > That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas: "Debian emotional support group", maybe. But maybe wait with the naming until there's a clear description of what the group is reponsible for. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > name for a team that deals with this. That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas: all @debian.org trouble too vague, also negative behaviour seems somehow hostile, also vague conduct seems somehow hostile, also vague appeals too strongly advertises judicial function arbitration too strongly advertises judicial function upset can minimise and subjectify bad actions conflictvery negative resolution too vague but at least positive reconciliation not attractive to complaints who want action dispute[s] maybe? Ian.
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On 4/18/18, Cindy-Sue Causeywrote: > On 4/18/18, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: >>> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these >>> issues. >> >> Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem >> to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't >> happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was >> offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve >> any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". >> >> This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong >> name for a team that deals with this. > > > What about turning to a thesaurus? That's helped me A LOT along the > way in #Life. :) < yada-yada snipped for brevity > >> So I tried an "employee bonding" search. That landed a few things that > may or may not be of interest relative to this topic. "Team building' > was another phrase that presented itself. Both appeared to be > something that might could be tweaked to apply to an international > group of volunteers living in a far more stressful World than we had > in the 90s.. :) Something else just occurred to me. Our ages play a part in how we communicate, maybe particularly about how we are able to sympathize, possibly even empathize with the feelings and opinions of others. That came to mind because I was just reading something yesterday about some very young programmers who were so capable that they caught the eye of the government. :D Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with duct tape *
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On 4/18/18, Lars Wirzeniuswrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: >> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these >> issues. > > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't > happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was > offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve > any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". > > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong > name for a team that deals with this. What about turning to a thesaurus? That's helped me A LOT along the way in #Life. :) Also, my memory is foggy so this next might not end up applicable, but there was a catch phrase that was all over the business world in the late 90s. My memory is that the concept was about understanding each other and learning to interpret each individual's... I don't know... point of view, I guess. Whatever it was, it was so involved that we ended with two or three inch thick notebooks full of things about it when it was over. The thing about something like that is it does take the willingness of all involved to make it work. Again, I could really be remembering wrong, but the feeling left all these years later was that it was all about bonding toward one goal in spite of very obvious, understandable, acceptable differences. So I tried an "employee bonding" search. That landed a few things that may or may not be of interest relative to this topic. "Team building' was another phrase that presented itself. Both appeared to be something that might could be tweaked to apply to an international group of volunteers living in a far more stressful World than we had in the 90s.. :) And my apologies if that topic has already long ago been addressed somehow.. :) Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with duct tape *
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: > I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these > issues. Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't happening. The situations seem to be "A did something, and B was offended, how do we get A and B to understand each other, and resolve any conflict, and get A and B to collaborate in the future?". This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong name for a team that deals with this. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Hey, I have not been able to contribute properly to this thread so far, for personal issues, but I would like to leave my 5¢. On 18/04/18 12:49, Ian Jackson wrote: > 6. You mention `anti-harassment' as a `lever of power" but of course >anti-harassment have no inherent authority. > > IMO the antiharassment team's members would be a good starting point > for the members of my proposed new structure. But the new structure > needs to relate entirely differently to our existing institutions. Since a few days ago, I am part of that team. I can say that I have been thinking for a long while about a-h and its (lack of) powers, although I still don't know what would be best for the future. I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these issues. Currently, it can only give recommendations, but it is not void; and I think it will be natural that the liaison with DAM, mailing list operators, etc will only get stronger with time. > I wonder if I should propose a GR. That would provide a way of > testing whether my ideas (which do seem controversial) are more widely > held, and also if the GR passes, give clear legitimacy to the new > team. Dunno if we are at the point where a GR would be useful yet. -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet > > another contact point? > > Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a > pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps > with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was > involved?] > > Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the > existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if > escalation was required. There are several things wrong with this suggestion IMO: 1. It depends on the DPL selecting a suitable delegate for each incoming enquiry. At best, with a standing panel, this is makework and an opportunity for things to get dropped. At worst it is another way for an escalation of bad behaviour to be blocked. 2. You are suggesting mediation. Mediation is certainly *one* part of what is needed, but also *conciliation* and *arbitration*. Generally I am not a fan of mediation because it does not look at the rights and wrongs behind an issue; so it reinforces the existing power structures. 3. Complaintants should not be expected to repeatedly explain/justify their views to a succession of different teams/officeholders/whatever. 4. Your proposed people seem to lack real authority; and also public legitimacy. The lack of authority/legitimacy is a problem because (i) awkard disputants will just say the appointee is wrong (ii) if escalation is required, see (3). 5. Each individual dispute should be dealt with by more than one person. Because otherwise escalation to enforcement action will inevitably have to violate (3), since there are some serious steps which might be necessary for which a single person's recommendation would be clearly insufficient; and even for less serious steps, collective rather than individual judgement is probably better. 6. You mention `anti-harassment' as a `lever of power" but of course anti-harassment have no inherent authority. IMO the antiharassment team's members would be a good starting point for the members of my proposed new structure. But the new structure needs to relate entirely differently to our existing institutions. I wonder if I should propose a GR. That would provide a way of testing whether my ideas (which do seem controversial) are more widely held, and also if the GR passes, give clear legitimacy to the new team. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > Hi Gunnar et al., > > [Ian:] > > > An effective, reliable and unified disciplinary mechanism > [..] > > Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially > > cover the case. > > I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making > the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that > could be part of the problem. Yes. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Chris Lamb dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:12:26PM +0100]: > > I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making > > the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that > > could be part of the problem. > > But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet > another contact point? Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was involved?] Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if escalation was required. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com [A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty. -- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §21
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Chris Lamb dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:12:26PM +0100]: > > FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current > > level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation. > (...) > This is made even more tragic in that I do not believe this is > representative of what being a Debian Developer actually entails or > requires. FWIW, I agree with this. Said discussions are really nocive and far from what we need. > > > An effective, reliable and unified disciplinary mechanism > [..] > > Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially > > cover the case. > > I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making > the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that > could be part of the problem. But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet another contact point? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Hi Gunnar et al., > FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current > level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation. I'm reluctant to jump so quickly to a meta dicussion but I think we underestimate the subtle effects of such discussions. In particular how they subconsciously (and conciously) affect the mindset of *non* combatants. Imagine, for example, a relative newcomer to the Project being linked to the threads in question. At the very best, it would hardly encourage them to contribute more. This is made even more tragic in that I do not believe this is representative of what being a Debian Developer actually entails or requires. > > An effective, reliable and unified disciplinary mechanism [..] > Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially > cover the case. I also am reluctant to speak for Ian (!) but I believe he is making the point that it is this very diversity of contact points that could be part of the problem. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 01:39:07PM +0100]: > We desperately need: FSVO desperate. I agree we need it, but based on the project's current level of discussions, I don't think it's a "desperate" situation. > * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling, >that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1]. > > * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that >(i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is >feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult >people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able >to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do >things here. Thing is, I believe we have several bodies / mechanisms that partially cover the case. You mention in your footnotes a body that makes recommendations that would be followed by DAM, TC or whoever. It depends on the case at hand, but I'd say this is covered by the TC, DAM, the anti-harassment team, the DPL (who is not burdened by this as a single individual but as one of the potential points of contact), specific teams that cover the different aspects of the project (say, the ftpmasters, or the DebConf committee, or whatnot). I believe the problem that sparked your message are the recent threads (in d-devel, in d-private) that show conflict between Debian contributors. However, part of the problem might be they are threads started off... Mails. We could have said to any of those, "please shut up here, solve your interaction issue by talking with __" - But the threads have already started. People would keep replying to them even if mediation was "abducted" to a specialized group. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > On 2018-04-17 14:39, Ian Jackson wrote: > > We desperately need: > > > > * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling, > >that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1]. > > > > * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that > >(i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is > >feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult > >people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able > >to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do > >things here. > > +1! I should say that I am volunteering, in the event that anyone considers me suitable to be part of such a thing. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
On 2018-04-17 14:39, Ian Jackson wrote: We desperately need: * Somewhere people can escalate a dispute involving ill-feeling, that isn't debian-devel[0] or the DPL[1]. * An effective, reliable and unified[2] disciplinary mechanism that (i) promotes healing, apology and reconciliation where that is feasible (ii) failing that, limits the damage done by difficult people (iii) when inappropriate behaviour appears in public is able to authoritatively declare and demonstrate that it is not how we do things here. +1! -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ xmpp:j...@debian.org ring:highvoltage