Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 18:39:06-0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't get
> to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project member (or
> list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to improve the
> tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the power of your
> delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act special weight.
Let me quote myself:
> > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we
> > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider
> > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter
> > continue.
As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of
our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist.
You seem to forget that it's already what we did before being delegated,
and, if that could make you more comfortable, my email to this list
wouldn't have been different from a single bit if we weren't delegated.
Actually, the other members of the CT can confirm that, but I was the
one pressing that we would not need a delegation, and that if we did
intend to be delegated, I was expecting no power from this delegation,
and no specific rights to get someone out of any part of the project
apart from the rights we have as standard Developers or members of these
parts of the project.
I actually stand by my point, and I would not be fine with having any
specific leverage on any core team (DAM, Listmasters, DSA or other). To
me this team's leverage is words, and the trust we'll build with these
core teams, nothing more.
> While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the
> delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC do
> get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more equal than
> others.
Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it
respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy
that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you
could have thought that I was going out of line.
> It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd have
> had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, but not
> enough for me to question it.
I'm quite concerned that you could think that a member of the Community
Team is going overboard when asking people to not continue discussing
about Hitler additions in a conversation on a list, because he would
need to be a listmaster to do so.
> As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm
> required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member there
> are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this close to just
> dumping everything else because it's too draining.
I'm sorry if you feel the requirement for social interactions as a
draining thing, and I would really like to have some solutions to offer
you about that, but I have no real clue about how to help. Yet I don't
think that seeing some people trying to have a saner community and
better discussions on public lists should be draining at all. If it is,
I'm sorry, and I'd be happy to discuss with you about how we could do
the same job in a manner that would make you more confortable.
I hope that you understand why I sent this initial email, why I stand by
it, and why it's important.
And of course, should the listmasters think that the way we acted is
excessive, we'd be glad to speak with them about that, and to have them
define the frame in which we should act on lists.
With best regards,
--
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Reply to: