Cc-ing you, but if you prefer not being replied directly for lists on which you're subscribed, please do tell. Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> wrote on 20/02/2022 at 20:50:24+0100: > Hi, > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:23 AM Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org> wrote: >> >> We should **not** be using the CoC as a hammer, a tool to punish >> people. It's a set of guidelines, setting basic expectations about >> interactions one is going to have with people in Debian. People make >> mistakes - we're only human. > > As a recent recipient of a DAM warning—for an isolated incident in > which I described someone as a "freak" to a third party while that > person was present—I found Steve's email comforting. > > With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has a long > way to go in implementing basic precepts of justice. For example, it > would be good to hold hearings in which the accused can make a > statement before any action is taken. IMHO, yeah, it would be good, and it's the sort of procedure the appeal made by DAM represents when someone gets removed. But for warnings, it'd become quite too expensive to hold any sort of trial, especially when the grounds for the warning are public and warrant for a warning independently of what could have caused them. > Those rights go back to the Magna Carta in 1215 and predate any modern > form of elected government. Instead, they limited the arbitrary and > capricious nature of unelected officials, namely the Kings of England. > As someone who has felt the stick (or, as Steve wrote, the "hammer") I > plead with DPL, DAM, CT to implement such basic protections without > further delay. > > Also, I do not know which avenues of recourse were open to me at the > time—and did not challenge the warning in any event—but it was unfair > for some folks to suggest a GR in response. The burden should be the > other way around, i.e the membership should be forced to affirm a > disciplinary DAM action if the accused does not mind the publicity. > Upon failure, the accused should walk. I'm not sure to understand the meaning of the two last sentences, could you please elaborate on these? Cheers, -- PEB
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature