Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct
Hi Jonathan,
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:34 PM Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 11:26:11AM -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> > 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:
>
> So, responding to those points in turn (and bearing in mind that this is
> not an official statement of any kind):
>
> > 1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected)
>
> Process of what? It's true that the relationship between AH and DAM is new
> and we're finding how best to work together, but that's not really a
> process.
I should have said "expulsion process".
I assumed there was a process to ensure expulsions (or recommendations for
expulsion) were handled fairly, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear
in my initial
message. This was not about planet, etc. but the removal of DD status.
> > 2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them
>
> That's a rather simplistic view. Cases reaching AH and DAM typically do so
> as a last resort after going through many iterations of feedback.
>
> > 3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually
> > separated to reduce confirmation bias)
>
> Except that they can't actually *do* anything above and beyond and ordinary
> DD. AH are not delegated and don't have any special powers; it's up to
> maintainers of services whether their recommendations are implemented.
>
They do have a position of trust, even if they don't have powers.
> > 4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted
>
> If you have suggestions of how to open proceedings up without compromising
> the confidence expectations of any of the involved parties, we'd all be
> delighted to hear them. It's a hard problem, it always has been.
>
> > 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
>
> The ultimate appeal is through a GR, but that's a pretty blunt tool. We
> have proposals in discussion internally already to make this better.
>
> > 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.
>
> What is it that leads you to believe it then?
I am assuming positive intent, and it is also how I imagined AH was
supposed to work, but I may have been making incorrect assumptions
about any informal procedures that exist there as well.
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> If you have only one half of a story, it is dangerous to draw absolute
> conclusions from it.
That is why I mentioned that I only have half of the story, but it is also
exactly the problem I have with #2 -- if we don't give people the opportunity
to address accusations against them, we are operating on 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).
>
> Other people have expressed far more cogently than I can how Debian, AH and
> DAM are very much not courts and these are not legal proceedings. Debian is
> a private members organisation and is governed primarily by its own
> foundation documents.
>
Although AH is not a court, I feel that extreme measures should be applied
as fairly as possible. Courts were designed with this purpose in mind, and
that is why I made the comparison. I think a process for expulsion would
assuage peoples fears, even if it doesn't resemble a court proceeding -- as
long as it gives them a chance to give their side of the story and be heard
by someone who hasn't been searching for evidence against them.
> > 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?
>
> All Debian teams are volunteer-staffed and overstretched. If you are able
> to make a contribution to this document in some way, I'm sure they would
> appreicate the help.
I am willing, however I don't know exactly how AH are interpreting the CoC.
If you would like me to write something up with my assumptions and send
it to you directly, feel free to send me a direct email.
Also, since it sounds like there is a lot going on behind the scenes
on -private,
I'm going to try to leave these threads alone now.
--
Eldon Koyle
Reply to: