Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

    Russ> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
    Russ> I dunno, I realize I may be being too cavalier here, but see
    Russ> the point above about making more decisions, faster, and
    Russ> accepting a few mistakes.  If we end up with a rash of bogus
    Russ> warnings, we can reconsider.  But right now warnings are about
    Russ> as frequent as Papal encyclicals, and I think partly as a
    Russ> result people have gotten really weird ideas about them.

I mostly agree with you.
And my comments were more directed at more serious membership actions
than warnings.
Although I think most of the time it'd be a good idea to check in with
someone and ask for their side before issuing a warning too.

I note that CT can issue warnings with a lot less process than DAM can.

    Russ> I guess the other possibility is that people really want
    Russ> warnings to be way more serious than any meaning I personally
    Russ> would ascribe to the word "warning" and are thinking of them
    Russ> as formal project censure or something akin to that.  In that
    Russ> case, my argument is that we need a warning that's actually
    Russ> just a warning, and the thing we've got is much too strong and
    Russ> the real problem is that we don't have something lighter
    Russ> touch.

We've got:

1) individual members acting.
I think we don't get enough of this.
I think that we also don't have a culture where it's sufficiently
strongly expected that you at least consider carefully when fellow
project members tell you that you're making things shitty for you.
It's way too acceptable to say "well, nothing in the rules says I
can't."

2) We've got CT warnings.
I don't know what their internal procedure is now, but it seems like
they don't require as much consensus as when I was involved.

3) We've got DAM warnings.
Mostly, these are more serious than CT warnings, although I'm aware of
situations where the stars lined up and it was easier for DAM to act
than the CT even though either would have been okay.

4) We've got suspension-like things.

5) We've got expulsion-like things.

And somewhere between 2 and 4 we've got mailing list bans, bts bans, IRC
operator action an dthe like.

I absolutely agree it would be great if we had more warnings (especially
down at level 1 from individual developers) and we made it easier for
warnings to be given.

I also agree it may well be the case that DAM warnings have too much
formality.

--Sam