[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Censorship in Debian

On 21/12/18 00:48, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:18:51PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> If people want to pursue an anti-harassment objective in good faith,
>> then please start by realizing the existing team and their approach
>> needs careful examination, they need to make it a priority to put at the
>> front of their mind the welfare of every single person they come into
>> contact with, even if they don't understand or can't related to that
>> person's behaviour and they probably need to engage outside expertise
>> both for the benefit of the community and their own state of mind.
> Have you actually epoken to the anti-harassment team to enquire about
> their actions and supporting evidence before calling their methods and
> motivations into doubt here?

I've read their reports and made various observations.  As I was also in
a representative role in another organisation, I also received reports
of various kinds from time to time so I empathize with some of the
challenges they face.

Putting the evidence I've seen in a public list would be disrespectful
and a breach of trust.  Nonetheless, I confirm to the community that I
have seen enough (and I'm not referring to any communication they sent
about my own participation) to feel that some people are being left with
an unnecessarily bad feeling after interactions with the team and that
is a risk to the project.

> Also: not wishing to pile on, but I also believe that you linking
> assassinations to the actions of the a-h team is downright toxic and
> you should apologise.

I regret that people are focusing on that comment and a-h alone.

Nonetheless, the strength of my concern is the same.  Putting it in
perspective, in July, I indicated privately to the leader of our
project, Chris Lamb and also to Google that some extraordinary personal
circumstances had an adverse impact on my role as a mentor in GSoC this
year.  Google suggested simply taking a rest from the program, which was
hardly unreasonable in the circumstances, while the DPL became
frustrated, started making disparaging comments to other people about my
competence and I feel he has become increasingly vindictive towards me
in private.  A-H have seen some of that and done nothing to intervene.

Given those recent circumstances, which I have every right not to
discuss on a public list, there is probably nothing more extreme,
callous and harmful that Debian could do than removing my key from the
keyring on the night before what was the anniversary of being married
(in the civil sense).  Somebody then slapped it in my face again with an
offensive post on Planet the night before my birthday.  Norbert's post
to planet barely comes close to something like that.

If this project, through its leader, can be so out of touch with human
decency to treat a developer with such extraordinary disrespect and
contempt at a time like that then please don't groan too soon at my own
reactions to the latest goings on.

Notice that all of the above took place more than two months after the
original disclosure I made to the DPL but just days after SPI confirmed
receipt of $17,000 from Google, in other words, giving me the feeling
that Debian (or simply Lamb) had deliberately exploited and used me
until all GSoC loose ends were tied up and then put me out with the trash.

At a time when a remotely normal community might have showed some
compassion and support, Debian/Lamb continue to sustain this state of
hostility, forcing me to recall all of the above on a daily basis for a
number of months now.  So I apologize if my own communications might
have become a reflection of those very low standards of leadership that
I encountered here.

When I see the possibility that other members of the community are being
trampled on now, I simply assume the leadership is getting it wrong
again.  I would hate for anybody else to be put through what Lamb has
done in my situation.



Reply to: