[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures



On Monday, February 21, 2022 12:33:55 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
> > The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it
> > is a threat of expulsion.  The minimal possible solution to people
> > feeling threatened would be to not threaten them.  That may not be
> > enough, but that would be a first step.  Focusing on the feeling shifts
> > the blame and buries the lede.
> 
> It's a balance, because if people would always course-correct without
> being told they have to with someone with perceived authority, we would
> not be having this discussion because it wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> I get the impression you think I'm hair-splitting, any communication from
> DAM is inherently a threat, and we should just accept that.  I think it's
> true that any formal communication from someone who can kick people out of
> the project has some level of implied consequences, but I don't think it's
> true that we can't fine-tune the implication.  I think it matters a lot
> whether it's public or private, for example, and whether we explicitly
> raise expulsion or not.
> 
> That said, it is entirely possible that I am being far too optimistic
> about the number of people who are willing to ignore peer feedback but are
> willing to substantially change their behavior when they get DAM feedback.
> Maybe the people who are unwilling to accept feedback unless it comes from
> someone in perceived authority are already too harmful to the project to
> try to spend more time and energy on, and a direct warning of expulsion
> *is* the right way to go about it.  I hope that isn't the case, but I
> admit that it's very worrisome when people won't hear peer feedback and I
> admit I personally don't want to spend a lot of time working with
> aggressively confrontational and draining people in the hope that they'll
> change.
> 
> Regardless, though, I really do not like that we've backed ourselves into
> a corner that involves public shaming (even if it's not intended to be
> that) as part of the process.

I agree with the last point and I think your concerns are fair.

OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone losing their 
temper and calling someone an unfortunate name is like ringing a doorbell with 
a sledge hammer.  If that's now the standard for threatening removal, I think 
it's FAR to low.  This worries me more than it being too hard to make 
decisions.

Scott K

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: