enforcement first, ask questions later?
In Molly de Blanc's FOSDEM talk description, the first line reads "Is
there a single right way to enforce a code of conduct, community
guidelines, or whatever you call the systems you have to help maintain a
Now might be a good time to watch Das Experiment (or the trailer).
Does that look like a "good community"?
This reveals a lot about the serious problems in Debian right now. Did
we really sign up to be part of an experiment like that? I didn't.
Why do certain people want to start out with enforcement, skipping over
normal human relations, avoiding meetings for almost a year, assuming
they always know who is at fault?
It is a fact that both Lamb and de Blanc have stated at various times
during 2018 that they didn't have time to talk to people. It is also a
fact that multiple people have complained that Debian leadership figures
are too busy to talk to them. Is it acceptable for them to skip over
talking to people and rush to enforcement simply because they are busy?
Or is that an even bigger risk to community safety?
My impression is that if you don't have time for people, if you don't
listen to people, you don't gain their respect. If you don't have their
respect, enforcement is even less likely to convey whatever message you
hope it will.
What happens when you can't tell the difference between enforcement and
abuse any more?
What happens when you know it is abuse, how do you stop the enforcers
doing it and hold them to account?
Is anybody in Debian really qualified to conduct enforcement operations
Is it right to use defamation and character assassination as a tool of