Re: Results of the Antiharassment Team Survey
>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de> writes:
Marc> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:04:43PM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> 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.
Marc> +1
>> 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.
Marc> The no-mediation approach is un-inclusive towards people who
Marc> involuntarily write things that sound more harsh than
Marc> meant. This is a rather common pattern in nerds that we tend
Marc> to overreact and overstress things. Not doing any mediation
Marc> before making actions such as expelling people from the
Marc> project is a violation of the diversity statement.
I'm not 100% sure that you and Christian are talking about the same
thing.
Christian is talking about mediating the question of whether something
is a CoC violation or not.
You are talking about having a conversation about how to respond when
there is a CoC violation. (If it's more harsh than intended in a way
where it's not respectful or doesn't create a welcoming community, it's
inconsistent with our standards regardless of what you intended. But
the best response is often to help you do a better job of expressing
what you intended when things are coming across too harsh.)
I think that conversation you're talking about--understanding the
circumstances and especially for people interested in improving
discussing ways to do that--is something I hope our AH process will
have.
--Sam
Reply to: