Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
This is likely to be my last message on this sub-thread, or at least I'm
definitely slowing down responses.
Replying to two messages.
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> writes:
Matthew> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> > What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical
>> committee?
>>
>> Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier
>> way of handling this. See the "Maximum term for tech ctte
>> members" thread. Such a proposal would deal with this without
>> singling anyone out and without explicitly censuring any
>> particular actions, and would furthermore establish an ongoing
>> procedure that seems more broadly useful.
Matthew> I'm not sure encouraging "if you hate Ian, vote for a
Matthew> maximum term for committee members" is very constructive.
Hi Matthew, I feel that I at least haven't been heard very well when I
read the above and would like to be heard differently.
I do not hate Ian. I do not think anything Josh has said implies that
Josh hates Ian.
I disagree with some of the actions Ian has chosen to take very
strongly. I believe that they tend to create a community that
discourages a form of compassionate, constructive discussion I value
strongly.
I value that form of discussion strongly enough that I believe it is
appropriate to take steps to exclude people who are not acting with
compassion and respect. Such steps can include talking to those people
and asking them to step back until they are ready, as well as more
formal procedures.
For me, nothing about this involves hate.
I can sometimes really understand a deep hurt that someone is feeling
that motivates them to act in a manner I disagree with. Often, that
understanding is sufficient that I can connect with them and find a
place where we can meet with compassion and respect.
Sometimes, the greatest understanding does not bridge that gap.
Obviously, I cannot speak for Josh, but I hope I at least am heard
differently than you imply above.
Aigars> On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't
>> start this thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather
>> because of a pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no
>> signs of changing.
Aigars> I do find it quite alarming that this discussion has now
Aigars> divulged into a discussion of the behavior one of the
Aigars> initiators of the discussion and has completely abandoned
Aigars> the actual issues. Regardless of who started what and when,
Aigars> attacking personal credibility of your opponent is not a
Aigars> winning argument.
Unfortunately, this discussion exists within a broader context of a
community. In order to be a welcoming community that encourages
participation from a broad audience--in order to be a community we want
to be part of, we need to have mechanisms for maintaining respectful
discourse. It's really hard to say "I disagree very strongly with the
behavior of a respected member of this community." That shouldn't be
too easy; we don't want people responding in that way every time they
get upset or angry. However it must not be too hard, and it absolutely
must not be forbidden if we're going to have a good way to respond to
behavior that we find does not create the climate we wish to have.
Also, while this does not directly disagree with what you say, we may
not be in agreement on one key point. I think it is strongly desirable
not to respond to technical points until they are raised in a
constructive and respectful manner. By doing so we can create
incentives to respond as we hope people will.
--Sam
Reply to: