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.