Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process"):
>> What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on
>> enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem
>> to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further,
>> about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so
>> far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything
>> that's been said in this mailing list.
>
> It would be disingenous of me to say that my message isn't prompted
> by a specific incident. For obvious reasons I haven't explained what
> that incident is. I'm assuming that Russ hasn't seen my other message
> about this, on another forum.
This in fact is, in my extremely high opnion, a classic example
of the tyranny of the COC! Everyone in this thread has been SO
"PC", no one dares post the link, or even name the even so that
it might be searchable! And to top it off, walk on egg shells
because of assumptions that we might offend simply by
assuming Ian was "responding" to "the event".
FFFFS!!!
Ian, thank you so much for your honesty, and it's a breath of
fresh air! Thank you, genuinely!
Yet the example stands! Stands tall, like a proud and long COC!
We being to censor one another...
Mind the egg shells folks! They'll be cuttin' yer feet already!
> I hope that regardless of your opinions about the specific incident,
> you would support the ideas that:
>
> - If we have a CoC it should be enforced.
The COC starts to be swung in our faces.
Or rather, we start to swing it in our own faces!
> That includes taking action on justified complaints,
> and dismissing unjustified ones.
By the all-benevolent, ever benevolent, and "never-to-be-
challenged-as-benevolent-you-miserable-serfs" censors!
I vehemently oppose the premise! whilst I laud the goal!
Perhaps try "achieve the aims of the COC" rather than
"enforce the COC"??
It seems almost impossible for humans to not reinvent the
tyrannical "democractic" state!
It blows my effing mind, to be blunt.
> - It should be clear who is responsible for decisionmaking about CoC
> complaints. Complaints sent somewhere else should be passed to the
> decisionmakers (with the complainant's consent, of course).
Oohh yeah!! Bring on the censors!
We know where that leads, we've seen it just a couple
months ago on the d-community-offtopic list.
But hey, don't let me stop your descent.
Roads to hell and pavings of good intentions.
I've said it before, and I doubt there's any point my repeating
it these days; cotton wool knows no bounds these days.
> - CoC enforcement should not depend on whether the
> alleged violator is politically important.
Politicaly impotent then?
Yeah that's it! We must defend the politically impotent!
All minorities must be catered to, and every talk, every
presentation, nay, every off the record discussion, must
be pounded with censors, moderators, curators and vettors!
Don't hold back now.
> - Those responsible for CoC enforcement should have some
> examples to help them make their decisions.[1]
Don't worry about that.
The pace with which the problems of the tyranny of the
almighty COC has quickened is surprising even to me.
And, and I'm quite serious on this, without more people
seeing those problems of their own accord, an enlightened
approach is a waste of time, so yes I've just contradicted
myself.
Although I hold that external authority is the refuge of the
weak, PCness the refuge of the unimaginative, democracy
and enforcement of laws/statutes/COCs the refuge of the
lazy,
I also hold that the lessons of history and of so called
democratic society have not been learnt.
Not in the slightest.
So it is actually in all our interest, that we run the path
of laws (the COC), enforcement, nomination of enforcers,
and experience the full depth of that which follows, which
given the pace of our "IT industry" ought only take a few
short years.
Knock yourselves out, since it might truly result in some
enlightenment after the fact. I believe this.
> - CoC decisionmaking should not involve the DPL or the press team.
> (The press team should of course be involved to help with drafting,
> once the general substance of public statement has been decided on;
> and to help if a CoC dispute becomes a matter of public discourse.)
Fully agreed.
> - CoC decisionmaking regarding events at a conference should be done
> promptly and in person if possible - specifically, without needing
> to involve people who are far away and in the wrong timezone.
Definitely.
> - CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines helping them decide
> whether and when to take any public action, and what information
> (if any) to pass on to (which) future event organisers.[1]
Absolutely. Otherwise it's a mess of personality and personal
opinions, which was the point of the COC in the first place.
> - CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines about whether to inform
> complainants of the outcome of a complaint. (I think the
> complainant should almost always be informed of the outcome but
> even if you disagree surely the actual practice should be agreed,
> rather than made up on the fly.) [1]
Totally. Sounds like you're repeating yourself here, but that's ok;
repetition is not a violation of the COC, although I do find COCs
to be a little repetitive.
> [1] The presence of guidelines, including examples, is important
> because these decisions are often difficult and controversial.
No disagreement here.
> Unsupported decisionmaking in such situations typically results
> in delay, the consideration of irrelevant factors, the failure to
> consider all relevant factors, a reluctance to take positive action
> of any kind, and, ultimately, poor decisions.
Agreed.
> Perhaps if we had had clear authority, and those in authority had the
> support of guidelines answering these kinds of questions, I would have
> had a response saying that my complaint had been considered, but
> wasn't considered justified. I would have found that disappointing
> but I wouldn't have felt the need to pursue it.
This is a good example. Clear authority is clearly lacking in the COC,
and I suggested as much in my rants on debian-user!
Well, let's get the details underway, especially since the Debian
community is so big, and well regarded, that we will undoubtedly
be looked to for ideas/guidance/inspiration by other projects.
We have a duty of care in this regard,
Zenaan
Reply to: