Re: Q to both candidates: preventing burnout by other contributors
Hi Chris,
Thank you for adressing those difficult questions, and thanks for
everyone who stepped up to bring them forward. This is probably one of
the most important discussions right now in the free software world (if
not in STEM overall)...
On 2017-03-29 19:19:31, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> 2. Do you have any thoughts or plans around how to more proactively
>> address social problems that fall short of explusion
>
> If I claimed I had a foolproof solution to this problem I would either
> be a liar or the saviour of the free software movement in general…
>
> (I'm also somewhat hesitant to give my ideas without some kind of caveat
> that its remains unclear to me whether it should be the role of the DPL
> to *rule* or even have any input whatsoever on such cases.)
>
> However, I still think that by continually and reliably calling it out
> in general, even in cases where it is unlikely to worsen, means that
> our culture will — in time — change for the better.
>
> For specific cases, we could look into a "traffic light" warning systems
> but moreover make the process of escalation to some kind of third-party
> mediator more frictionless.
The thing is: we're not expecting you to solve all the problems, you are
just one person, after all. But as the DPL, you do have a specific, if
sometimes symbolic role. This is something everyone can do but, somehow,
we are socialized to take a step back and consider it more seriously
when it comes from leader@.
One thing I remember seeing Zack do fairly often in his time as a DPL
was to intervene in certain threads to provide a summary and try to find
a way out of difficult situations.
I think this is what good leaders can do: synthesize quiproquos and
conflicts, try to find ways out.
Furthermore, I believe it is everyone's responsability to "call people
in", as Enrico so interestingly put it: don't let crap behavior pass
by. It doesn't have to be in public, and it doesn't have to be against
the perpetrator either: sometimes, receiving positive comments, as a
victim, goes a long way in alleviating the impact of the crap that was
received.
Because, after all, when all is done, it's too late to protect the
victim once the harrassment has happened. All we can do for them is
heal and follow process.
But I also think the DPL could specifically intervene in case of
emergencies, where the harrassment team is too busy or doesn't have time
to respond. I'm not exactly clear on what the process is for contacting
the anti-harassment team, or what's the response time, but i somewhat
expect the DPL may be able to respond more promptly in cases of
emergency, even if only to coordinate things a little better.
In this specific case, it seems like there is a pending issue that's
been unresolved for way too long. People have explicitly sought
resolution and didn't get it.
What would be your proposed process then?
> Furthermore, putting people and teams together in real life is also
> another unexplored avenue. Whilst this speaks somewhat to my previous
> commitments for more meetups, the angle I am taking here is not waiting
> for the next {Mini,}DebConf or team summit but rather putting the two
> parties in the same room specifically to solve a social problem.
This doesn't strike me as such a good idea in the more serious cases, at
least. Putting victims in front of their opprossors can put a tremendous
emotional load on the victim and cause another traumatic event to
occur... I would be very careful with this approach.
Thanks for your response...
A.
--
Omnis enim ex infirmitate feritas est.
All cruelty springs from weakness.
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (58 AD)
Reply to: