>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> writes:
Norbert> Hi Gerardo,
>> On the other hand, nobody but me has spoken openly to say that it
>> was a mistake to issue that statement. So I'm taking that as
>> meaning that there is indeed a project-wide consensus that it was
>> ok.
Norbert> I am currently in a dangerous position to utter anything
Norbert> that is not in line with the current main way of thinking.
Hi. I'm going to reply to Norbert privately with advice specific to his
situation, but I've heard a number of people recently say they are
uncomfortable speaking their mind because they're concerned about
repercussions presumably from antiharassment, account managers, DPL, or
list masters or similar.
Russ talked about the inherent censorship we exercise as adults. I
absolutely hope that we do watch what we say because we care about each
other and we want to make sure we are well understood and do not hurt
each other needlessly. I absolutely do hope we double check potentially
touchy emails. I absolutely do hope that when we need it we ask others
to read over what we send.
But I don't want there to be a chilling effect out of fear. And I
certainly don't want there to be a chilling effect caused by lack of
understanding in how AH/DAM/DPL/listmaster work. I'm going to give some
advice here, but please, if you are afraid to speak your mind, reach out
on list, in mail to me, or in mail to antiharassment and let's chat.
Our goal is to create a community that works together not a community of
fear.
In almost all the cases I'm aware of, problems come up based on how
someone reacts when a member of our community wants to engage with them
about their behavior. That's right, the problem is almost always how
people are reacting to criticism, not their ideas or ideology.
The Antiharassment team, account manager and I want to create a
community where when someone approaches you with a problem, you're
expected to engage with them constructively. When that happens, it is
unlikely that action will be taken, and exceedingly unlikely that action
will be taken quickly.
Example of what we hope happens:
* I say something
* Someone says that they think I was disrespectful or hurt someone or
similar.
* I work to try and understand the concern and what the person bringing
up the concern hopes I'll do differently. I create an interaction
where they feel comfortable bringing up concerns with me in the future
*especially* when I don't resolve the concern the way they were hoping
I would.
* I work to disagree with ideas not people. Especially if I'm coming
across as judging someone for who they are or what they believe, I
make my position more clear.
* Sometimes we're going to hurt each other. Example: as DPL, when I
contemplate changing delegations or team membership in order to
improve a team, it's very likely that if people affected don't agree
with my decision they are going to be very hurt. Treating them with
respect in that situation can involve acknowledging the hurt, and
trying very hard not to judge them as people. Demonstrating that you
care when the things you say are painful goes a really long way.
* Being responsive and keeping the discussion going matters a lot. I
acknowledge that those of us working on conduct issues have significant
improvement to make in this regard.
But again the biggest number one thing you can do is to create a
constructive interaction where people are comfortable coming to you with
problems. If you do that and keep the communication open, you're very
unlikely to be surprised by your interactions with Antiharassment, me or
the account managers.
Examples of Things that are Problematic:
* When your response to a concern is to immediately deny that there's an
issue. Sometimes you'll disagree, but please take the time to
understand first.
* Focusing on legalisms--did you technically violate some rule or
not--rather than expressing empathy for what's going on. If someone
is hurt when they read your mails or interact with you, please take
the time to actually think about whether you can accomplish your goals
without causing as much pain. If there are simple changes you can
make that work for you and make things work better for them, does it
actually matter whether you've violated the letter of some rule?
* Attack the people bringing concerns or use a tone where they feel
uncomfortable talking to you about issues they have.
* Counter attacking/bringing up someone else's behavior without also
working on the concern. "I'm not going to change until this other
issue changes."
* Be respectful especially in disagreement.
Over and over again when talking to members of DAM, the message I've
gotten for them is that the trigger for considering whether there is a
membership issue is when someone is failing to constructively interact
with the community. When they bully--when they respond so strongly and
negatively that they make it hard to discuss things with them. When
multiple people have a hard time conversing about concerns. When they
disappear from important conversations.
Yes, there are times when actually saying something or expressing an
idea in Debian contexts is inappropriate. We saw such an issue the
other day where someone thought they might have crossed a line. It
wasn't a big deal: I said that I agreed that really didn't seem to be an
appropriate discussion for the list and we were done. I actually did
get some private mail asking why I thought asking about someone's
politics in that area was inappropriate. It was respectful; I answered.
I think I came across as more conservative than the person was hoping I
would. But because we interacted constructively I think it worked well
on all sides.
Similarly, we've had some challenges around Debconf 20. Taking a stance
against the citizens of Israel simply is not appropriate in a Debian
forum. In general, Middle East politics is not actually on topic for
debconf lists. And yet that particular decision has brought some things
into scope (in the right context) that otherwise would not be in scope.
I've tried to outline my position on that in
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslef52guz7.fsf@suchdamage.org
Discussing whether the publicity team made a reasonable decision in this
instance is certainly in scope for debian-project.
Clearly homophobia would be inappropriate in this discussion as in any
Debian context. If someone crossed that line, I'd hope members of our
community, whether they were from the Antiharassment team or not, would
raise the issue in a respectful manner. And if we reached understanding
and agreement to follow our standards we'd be done with the issue.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature