Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct

[Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:25 AM Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm worried
> I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single mistake", please give
> it a rest already. These are basic principles on how we want all
> people to interact.
<snip>

I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC
itself.  Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few
who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people
are worrying:

  1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected)

  2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them

  3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually
separated to reduce confirmation bias)

  4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted

  5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)

I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them
understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might
have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before
starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they
cannot provide it.

IANADD, but the limited information available about the process and the
outcomes is difficult in a community that is typically as transparent as
possible, and I think it is reasonable for people to have concerns about a
closed process.  Any information that can be provided about the process
would probably help with these concerns -- and it should be published
somewhere other than mailing list archives.

This situation is especially difficult since the interpretation of the
CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the
a-h team is interpreting it.  Maybe writing a more in-depth document on
the a-h team's interpretation of the CoC would help (examples of bad
behavior, examples of behavior that although someone might be offended,
is not forbidden)?

In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him
after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the
project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which
although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the
offending post before doing so).  However, I only have half of the story.

Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward
guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about
the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for
evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the
reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal
proceedings).

This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be
highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is
interpreting it.  Maybe writing a more in-depth document on what the a-h
team expects and what kind of behavior is the most common or most
disruptive would help?

(As an aside: I have noticed a tendency on the lists for people to pick
out the point they think is the worst in an email, beat on it
repeatedly, and ignore the rest of the argument -- this has the very
negative side-effect of making people feel like their main point has not
been and will not be heard.)

--
Eldon Koyle