Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures
On February 21, 2022 5:02:37 PM UTC, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>
>>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen
>>> expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of
>>> thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>>> presumption of future bad behavior. [...] This bothers me a lot. I
>>> think this perception is very harmful to the project because it creates
>>> excessive shame and anger and fear, which can be quite
>>> counterproductive in attempting to just get someone to shift their
>>> behavior.
>
>> Okay, so now you are saying I am being "very harmful to the project
>> because [my perception] creates excessive shame and anger and fear"?
>
>That is precisely the opposite of what I meant.
>
>What I'm trying to express is that the warning *entirely reasonably* made
>you feel shamed and attacked for a number of reasons, including the fact
>that it was public, and that making you feel that way was unnecessary and
>probably counterproductive. In other words, I think your reactions were
>understandable and are evidence that the warning system is not working the
>way that I think that it should because it doesn't provide enough
>psychological space for people to understand it as I think it should be
>intended.
>
>And to be clear I think this is a problem with the tools that we have
>available and the process we're currently using, not with how people are
>trying to use the imperfect tools that we have.
>
>> Your statement is plainly contradicted by the DAM warning I received.
>> It included this line:
>
>> If you continue resorting to personal insults when you interact with
>> other people, the DAMs will have no choice but to review your
>> membership in the project.
>
>> Upon receipt, it was reasonable for me to express, in your words, my
>> "fears [...] around warnings [...] that it's a permanent record sort
>> of thing, or it starts a file on someone, or otherwise creates a
>> presumption of future bad behavior."
>
>Exactly. This is why I do not like the way that we are currently doing
>warnings. The first step by a team that is serious enough to not be
>ignored already feels like a threat of expulsion. I think we're starting
>with too large of a hammer because we don't have the right tools to try to
>course-correct earlier in a way that doesn't make people feel publicly
>attacked, and the announcement of the warning to the project (an entirely
>well-intentioned process that grew out of trying to solve a different
>problem) makes people quite reasonably feel like they're being publicly
>shamed.
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.
Scott K
Reply to: