Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?
Dear Daniel.
Daniel Pocock - 04.02.19, 07:29:
> On 03/02/2019 11:02, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Daniel Pocock - 03.02.19, 08:38:
> >> 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?
> >
> > Quite bold accusations, Daniel.
>
> Those are known facts, not simply accusations. They acted like Debian
> is a Facebook group, deleting people without any process or
> discussion. Afterwards, during January 2019, they started making up a
> process to validate their decision retrospectively. Their arrogance
> is no less bold than my own repudiation of it.
[…]
I am deeply concerned about what you write.
However, for me, these are not facts.
Honestly: I read different posts contradicting each other, partly to the
maximum extent possible, it appears to me. I have *no* idea, what the
truth is. My bet is, again: None of it is *the* truth.
Part of a solution for me still is in agreeing to disagree and agreeing
that no one here is either right or wrong. Different, but not right or
wrong. And assume good intentions.
For me, again, there is no fault in life.
What I am seeing that you are apparently not, at least not yet achieving
the result you like to achieve – at least that is how I perceive it. And
I wonder whether another thread here will bring you closer to achieving
the result you like to achieve.
Best of luck for you for finding joy again in working for Debian or a
different distribution or project. I certainly agree that people who
decide about who is member or no member of Debian are supposed to treat
everyone fairly… whatever that means concretely.
For me there can be cases for enforcement first, ask questions later. If
a child runs into a car, I stop the child *physically* without asking
the child why the child did it or even explaining anything. Or here, if
the harm of not expelling someone from the project would be so high,
that immediate action appears to be warranted. But the requirements for
such an immediate action or decision would be *very high* for me. I
experienced something like that when practicing in a youth center. A boy
was about to attack another boy with a knife, a kitchen knife if I
remember correctly, completely in rage. I caught the attacking boy and
held him tightly fixed with all my strength until he let go of the knife.
I clearly said the boy that I will hold him this way until he calms
down. I did not argue anything. I did not ask any questions either. I
did not even justify using physical force. I knew either I hold the boy
or something very tragic might happen. It was a bit of a challenge,
cause in that situation he was quite strong. A day later the boy thanked
me for doing so. When reviewing my action later on I decided that I
would do it like this again if something like this would happen again.
However, here… within the Debian project… no life has been in danger.
And while the Debian project is no state, and human rights may not apply
directly… I either treat others with excellence… or I better do not
treat them at all. For me every human expression of the one
consciousness has an inherent dignity that I aim to respect in all
situations and in all circumstances. For me there is something about
human rights that is so universal that no entity within human society
would be outside of it. And that includes Debian.
If Debian project does not aim for the highest standards of excellence…
not only technically, but also socially, in interacting with one
another… there is clearly room for improvement.
My usual approach would be to ask first, then decide what to do.
But since I do not really know… out of my own experience… what actually
really happened here, I see a different stories apparently contradicting
each other and leave it as that.
Ciao,
--
Martin
Reply to: