Re: Results of the Antiharassment Team Survey
Hi Tina,
On 11.07.19 21:59, Martina Ferrari wrote:
> On 10/07/2019 06:45, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> However, if there's one thing I've learned from reading -project and
>> especially -private in the recent past, it's that where this line is
>> drawn seems to be entirely unclear, and an unclear rule rarely (if ever)
>> results in an improvement of things.
>
> This is true, and makes things more difficult for everybody involved. It
> is a direct consequence of how the CoC is written, but I am not sure
> there is a reasonable way to have a line clearly drawn without
> drastically weakening the usefulness of the CoC. [...]
I didn't mean to challenge the text of the CoC itself; the pattern of
being unspecific in norms is common and I concur that it is necessary here.
However, (this part is a setup for my next answer) for any given body of
people and one unspecific norm, it is possible for two individuals of
said body to arrive at conflicting interpretations, which calls for one
or more processes to resolve that conflict.
>> Hence, I not only personally like Sam's idea of mediation, I believe it
>> is essential to actually drawing that line. I believe it is essential to
>> leading to improvement.
>
> How do you see mediation helping draw that line? (Not a rhetorical
> question, I am honestly curious). Also, there are different ways to
> interpret the word mediation, what is your interpretation in this context?
Answering the second question first: my interpretation of mediation in
this context is a resolution process for the aforementioned conflicting
interpretations, whereby one or more neutral roles (eg: DPL or A-H)
attempt a resolution in cooperation with the involved parties.
I see this form of mediation helping to draw that line because (a) it
gives all parties an opportunity to have their side heard, (b) it
demonstrates that those drawing the line have sufficiently engaged in
understanding the problem, and (c) it sends a clear signal that we as a
project aim to solve conflicts cooperatively.
To me, (a) is an issue of fairness of the process. "The Project will
draw a line but will hear you before drawing that line".
It is my impression that some of the grievances, or the magnitude
thereof, result not from actual actions against an individual, but
rather from not being heard in the process.
[I very much empathize because to me personally, this is a matter of
principle. I believe that social processes, with social consequences,
should be as fair as reasonably possible, and I believe that not hearing
someone out does not reach that bar.]
(b) is important for two reasons:
First, there are numerous reasons why two parties might arrive at
conflicting interpretations, ranging anywhere from misunderstandings to
moral differences to incomplete information to simple matters of principle.
Second, even if the root cause is correctly identified, there might be
more than one solution to the problem, with varying costs and benefits
to the parties but also to the project.
To me, the no-mediation-approach is at best a crude heuristic that just
targets a specific symptom, regardless of the actual cause.
I believe that value of this symptom relief is at best only short-term
(as the root cause has not being fixed), often paid for with a much
higher long-term price. Anyone sharing the view of the "losing" side of
the argument will feel left out or shunned, and therefore result in a
loss of faith in those deciding. But even bystanders may be negatively
affected (eg: chilling effect).
Last but to me most important, (c) demonstrates inclusiveness,
collaboration, and the wish to deescalate. It demonstrates a "we're in
this together, let's fix this together" spirit that I believe the
Project sorely needs. It sets an example for others.
No-mediation is just so polarizing, and we've seen so much of this
lately. People get so hung up on what the Project's values should be,
and discussions completely deescalate, instead of just looking for a
Project where differing values can peacefully and respectfully coexist.
I've seen vegans and non-vegans attend DebConf, and drinkers and
non-drinkers attend the Cheese-and-Wine party, so I know it should be
possible at least in some cases.
>> On the other hand, a complete rejection of mediation can lead to cases
>> such as the following, where I cannot see the positive effect of A-H
>> enforcement at all. On the contrary, I find this utterly confusing, and
>> mails like these lead me to actively question whether I should even
>> publicly disagree with someone on a list, lest it be considered
>> harassment (this is not hyperbole, I can give an example on -private
>> where simple disagreement led to an A-H report).
>
> Please note that the case referred there was not simply about a
> disagreement on a mailing list, and A-H did not produce any report: as
> far as I know (I was not part of the team back then), the team only
> involvement was giving support to the people raising the complaint to DAM.
I have absolutely no idea as to what this incident is about, but I read
that mail as an instance of argument (a) above.
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: