Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?
On 04/02/2019 02:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:38:54AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> 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?
> Yes, it is.
>
> The first duty of the DPL and any delegates is to the Debian Project as a
> whole, not to any individual developer. If the appropriate delegates have
> determined that an individual developer's behavior is damaging to the
> project, they are absolutely justified in enforcing first.
>
> Restorative justice is a worthwhile goal, but it is a luxury. It is not the
> responsibility of the Debian Project to rehabilitate every contributor who
> it's determined has overstepped boundaries. Even ignoring the effect of bad
> actors, that constitutes an open-ended committment. And even if the
> project's representatives HAVE made a committment to rehabilitation, it is
> STILL acceptable to enforce FIRST if in their sole judgement this is
> necessary in order to limit any ongoing damage.
>
> If you don't understand this, then it is unsurprising to me if enforcement
> escalates.
>
Is that a threat?
Reply to: