Hi. In this message I'm speaking as the DPL facilitating a discussion. I'm trying to explain where I see the project consensus (or in this case lack there of). That is I'm explaining what I'm hearing from the project and trying to focus future discussion. First, by this point, I have quite high confidence that my original reading of the project's requirements is accurate. Russ did not challenge my reading of what people had expressed; he questions whether that is a good idea. No one else has come forward to challenge that reading. Summaries like the ones I posted are very good at pulling forth disagreement: when people read such a summary and they don't feel like it reflects the discussion, they are very likely to reply. As an example, when Russ challenged mediation, he got multiple replies indicating that it was important. Moreover, I had a long phone call with Russ where we discussed various feedback we had receive. This issue is important to both of us; we've apparently both been spending a lot of time talking to people. What we were hearing was surprisingly well aligned. While Russ didn't challenge my reading of the project's requirements, he did something very important. He argued that mediation is focusing even more energy on bad behavior; he argued that we don't have the resources to approach mediation; and he argued that it would make it impossible for us to find volunteers for the AH team. That is, he raised a blocking objection in the form of a insufficiently considered issue. He demonstrated that even if we had a consensus, it would be uninformed. We must respond to Russ's concern to move forward. However, we must also respond to the project's requirements that we've identified. Similarly, I understand from Molly that she (and probably the AH team) share a substantially similar concern to Russ. Clearly, we must have the AH team's support for any plan for their scope/approach/role. Several people have told me or assumed that given Russ's concern we'll move forward and not focus on mediation. That's not how building a consensus and listening to people's concerns work. The intersection of "we need responsiveness and mediation" and "mediation is impossible," is not "move forward without mediation." The intersection of "we need responsiveness and mediation" and "mediation is impossible," is "no consensus." Put another way: we're not done talking yet. I hope that surprises no one: this is a hard topic and it's doubtless going to take more than four or five messages to get a proposal that works for the project. We've identified the first conflict between what we want and what we can get. We've identified something to focus our discussions on. I think that is great progress. I think the question we should be asking ourselves is exactly the one Tina posed to Christian: Tina> How do you see mediation helping draw that line? (Not a rhetorical Tina> question, I am honestly curious). Also, there are different ways to Tina> interpret the word mediation, what is your interpretation in this context? [The line of which she speaks is the line around ambiguous areas in the code of conduct.] As DPl I have some thoughts on that, but I'd rather hold back for a bit and see if Christian or anyone else has answers to Tina's question. I understand Russ has some thoughts that I hope he'll be sharing soon. That's where I think we stand right now. ---------------------------------------- If you haven't already, feel free to stop reading here. Above I made the implicit assumption that we're looking for a consensus. That's the approach I'm following now. I think that finding a solution that works for the project, for DAM, for AH, for DPL, and for others involved in the code-of-conduct function is the best way to build trust and a welcoming community. I certainly think we should not give up on trying to find consensus at the first snag. Other approaches are available. In theory, the DPL could delegate a team without project consensus. (Delegating with a consensus that the DPL is making the wrong decision seems like a clear recipe for an override, but delegating with known objections none of them strong enough for an override may sometimes be the best choice.) That said, I'm very unlikely to unilaterally delegate in this instance without something much closer to a rough consensus. We could get to a point where calling a vote is the best way to choose a path forward. And of course, a team with somewhat less de facto power than the Antiharassment team has been assumed to have by a lot of us might not even need delegation or much project buy-in. I've been hearing from both AH and DAM that they'd rather have a team that actually is recognized (and delegated) as a central resource for the project. I concur with that goal. So right now, as DPL, I'm trying to get closer to a consensus. --Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature