On Friday, April 17, 2020 5:07:04 AM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > 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. That was before the team had specific boundaries to it's role defined. They've been defined now. The team should respect them and I do not believe you are. > 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. Delegation isn't just about what you can do as a team. It also sets the boundaries of the team's scope. As far as the words go, I think it's pretty horrible to jump in after a thread is over and publicly shame someone for doing the apology wrong. > > 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. No. We don't agree at all. You can't have it both ways. Either since you said you were acting as a team member, you were claiming a special role (inappropriately so in my opinion) or you have no special role (which is what you claimed) It can't be both. I was probably being to subtle in my language. Here's a more direct explanation so it won't be missed: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/all-animals-are-equal--but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others > > 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. I feel like you are intentionally twisting my words, but I will assume good faith and work on the assumption that I'm wrong and we are just communicating poorly. My objection has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. My objection has to do with the Community Team exceeding it's delegation when it's less than 48 hours old. I've already said, I don't think it takes a listmaster. Anyone can do it. My objection is you claiming that since you're a member of a team with no delegated powers you have a special power. The overboard part is that the email you were replying to was an apology for being out of line. The writer had already recognized that they'd made a mistake. While the apology may not have been the best one ever constructed, the situation was over. You would have been perfectly in line in my opinion if you had done two things differently: 1. Left out the bit about your authority as a member of the community team. 2. Replied to the original message, not the apology. > > 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. Once I again, I feel like you are twisting my words, but, although it's honestly getting strained, I'll assume this is more miscommunication. I did not say and I do not find social interaction draining. I find the actions of the Community Team and it's predecessor draining. I don't think your email was a step towards a saner community. It was rather the opposite. If I were to use your communication style here I would say, "I agree you have no clue", but that would be wrong, so I won't. Perhaps that idea gives you a better understanding of how I feel you are twisting my words. As long as you stick to solving actual problems and not publicly shaming people about wording their apology poorly, I think we'll be fine. As long as you stick to your delegation when claiming to act in the name of the Community Team, I think we'll be fine. It is strange, but true that now that there is a delegation text that says what the team's role is there are things you can (and should) do as an individual that the team can't. > I hope that you understand why I sent this initial email, why I stand by > it, and why it's important. I don't. I hope you understand why I think it's important that this abuse not go unanswered. > 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. That's not how it works. Once again, back to the text of the delegation: > > However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose > > and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. Your claim is that you get to assert whatever power you want and it's up to other teams to tell you to stop. That is precisely the opposite of what the delegation says. I believe you were wrong and I believe your claims to the contrary confirm it. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.