Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?
In the past, I’ve seen some communities to wither because of a toxic person violently pushed their agenda on everybody.
This is certainly following the similar pattern.
That’s my first and last 2 cents to this discussion.
Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 07:29, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
>
>> 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: