Re: Results of the Antiharassment Team Survey
Thanks for trying to work this out.
Comments inline.
Scott K
On July 13, 2019 2:23:15 AM UTC, Sam Hartman <leader@debian.org> wrote:
>
>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.
I think there's a countervailing point. If we don't have a n AH team that is willing to work with people to try and seek a common understanding of what is or is not appropriate (which is how I read what you term mediation), is there any point in having one at all for other than face to face events like debconf?
>We must respond to Russ's concern to move forward.
>However, we must also respond to the project's requirements that we've
>identified.
Russ has made an assertion. I think the way to test that assertion would be to see if we can reach a consensus definition of 'mediation' for AH and then issue a call for volunteers. If that falls short, then I think it's fair to call it a blocking point.
>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.
That or different team members if the current team isn't willing to fill the role the project believes is appropriate.
>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.]
For work outside face to face events, I don't see what else there is for the AH team to do. There are people whose role it is to address behavior issues on (I think) every online resource (e.g. mailing lists, BTS, IRC, planet.d.o). Where I see potential value for the AH team is in helping people (potentially the administrator of some of those resources or potentially people who have said things that other people find problematic) understand why there is an issue and how best to address it.
Some people involved in this discussion seem to assume all communication that someone might find upsetting is a deliberate attack. I don't think that's true.
I think not wasting time on someone who's problematic behavior is well established and unlikely to change is one thing. Treating everyone who is the recipient of a complaint that way is another and not one I would be comfortable with.
I may be misunderstanding, but that's what I think the implication of not doing 'mediation'.
>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.
Assuming my description above is reasonably well aligned with the definition people who think we can't do mediation believe it is, I'd like to hear what they think the job of the AH team is outside physical meetings.
I have a hard time understanding why I would ever do anything other than delete mail from the AH team if their role is limited to talking at me, not with me. I might as well just wait to see if the DAM is going to say anything or not.
Scott K
Reply to: