Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes: Hi everyone, I am sorry that this issue has been brought up in public, and I feel sorry for the people involved, as they are also very likely inadvertent victims of the harassment campaign. > I'm sure people unfamiliar with this situation are horribly confused by > this point. > > As DPL, I think I have a duty to try and give the electorate enough > information to evaluate situations like this while retaining privacy and > neutrality. > > I'm going to try and do so. > > My understanding is that in early 2017, some rather public and > concerning accusations were made. > As DebConf17 approached, the DebConf local team made a decision that > Teemu disagreed with and protested. > > For a while, the Debconf team failed to respond to Teemu's protest. The > DPL at the time escalated and asked for them to respond. They did, > declining to engage in a discussion because of the sensitive nature of > the situation, but pointed Teemu at another team in Debian. > > Jonathan was copied at least on the mail where the local team declined > to engage further, but I suspect that was in his role as a DebConf > Committee Member. The emails in question have been forwarded to both Sam and Jonathan. As you have noted, DebConf Committee members already received these emails. Appendix A contains a list of the emails. > According to Jonathan's mail here he was not involved in the decision in > question. > Moreover, according to mail from another DebConf committee member, the > decision is one that the local team took without involving the DCC as a > whole. All evidence I have supports Jonathan and the DCC's claim that > they were not involved. > However, I have not explored exactly who did make the decision. Thank you for these clarifications. > The DCC wishes that they had been involved earlier in the process. > I'll note that this is the kind of decision that is often taken in a > very small group, and I think it would be reasonable either to involve > or not to involve the DCC at the choice of the local team. > (I suspect some DCC members will disagree with me). Agreed and noted, it appears to be a matter of accountability for delegated roles in Debian. > Around the time Teemu brought up this issue on debian-vote, he sent > mail to the current project leader as well as people involved in the > previous exchange, asking for help deescalating the situation. > His proposal for how to do that seemed like it was going to be an > escalation rather than a deescalation. I responded with an alternative, > describing the situation under which I thought it made sense to go > forward and describing what a deescalation might look like. > > I have received no mail sense then. Thank you for the email on 2020-03-31, which was good to read. It seemed sensible (correctly or incorrectly) to await and see what replies might show up on -vote. We now have the following information: - An (all-round) organiser did not know - The DebConf Committee did not know - The DPL did not know Which leaves the (local) organising committee. This returns us to the original query: """ How would you handle a situation where a Debian event planning team would instigate a unilateral blacklisting against a DD for a Debian event, and the team would refuse to provide any details or explanation, even at the request of the DPL at the time? """ I.e.: What would you do to ensure that delegated roles in Debian have accountability? Appendix A ---------- On 2017-07-09 a previously unknown third party (not connected to Debian as far as I know) delivered a threat concerning my attendance at two events, one of them being DebConf17. These threats were mostly ignored. On 2017-07-20 the DebConf17 (local) team wrote to me, including the DPL, the DebConf Committee, da-manager and anti-harassment in the recipient list in <e5ccf617-b218-1002-3449-0b6735384396@lelutin.ca>: "This decision was taken after an explicit request to ban you". On 2017-07-22 I sent a response to the same recipient list, in <874lu4ucrt.fsf@logic.part.iki.fi>, explaining parts of the harassment campaign against me, and requesting fair treatment and copies of any materials. On 2017-07-27 (during DebCamp, only a few days before the start of DebConf17) the DPL requested the DebConf17 (local) team to respond to me in <1501234967.2211370.1055405832.1D2D7A4A@webmail.messagingengine.com>, noting that by not responding, the DebConf17 (local) team was forcing a particular sequence of events. On 2017-07-29 I sent a lengthy email in <87lgn7od44.fsf@logic.part.iki.fi> to the same recipient list, further explaining the harassment campaign against me, and how my attendance to DebConf17 had been threatened by a third party on 2017-07-09. On 2017-08-03 (three days before the start of DebConf17) the DebConf17 (local) team responded in <b04e30df-ec64-b953-ed70-3ec2f1b3a768@lelutin.ca>, citing "trusted sources" (plural) as their only basis. The DebConf17 (local) team did not respond to any of the harassment campaign comparisons or threats made against me.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature