Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process"):
> What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on
> enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem
> to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further,
> about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so
> far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything
> that's been said in this mailing list.
It would be disingenous of me to say that my message isn't prompted by
a specific incident. For obvious reasons I haven't explained what
that incident is. I'm assuming that Russ hasn't seen my other message
about this, on another forum.
I hope that regardless of your opinions about the specific incident,
you would support the ideas that:
- If we have a CoC it should be enforced. That includes taking
action on justified complaints, and dismissing unjustified ones.
- It should be clear who is responsible for decisionmaking about CoC
complaints. Complaints sent somewhere else should be passed to the
decisionmakers (with the complainant's consent, of course).
- CoC enforcement should not depend on whether the alleged violator
is politically important.
- Those responsible for CoC enforcement should have some examples to
help them make their decisions.[1]
- CoC decisionmaking should not involve the DPL or the press team.
(The press team should of course be involved to help with drafting,
once the general substance of public statement has been decided on;
and to help if a CoC dispute becomes a matter of public discourse.)
- CoC decisionmaking regarding events at a conference should be done
promptly and in person if possible - specifically, without needing
to involve people who are far away and in the wrong timezone.
- CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines helping them decide
whether and when to take any public action, and what information
(if any) to pass on to (which) future event organisers.[1]
- CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines about whether to inform
complainants of the outcome of a complaint. (I think the
complainant should almost always be informed of the outcome but
even if you disagree surely the actual practice should be agreed,
rather than made up on the fly.) [1]
[1] The presence of guidelines, including examples, is important
because these decisions are often difficult and controversial.
Unsupported decisionmaking in such situations typically results in
delay, the consideration of irrelevant factors, the failure to
consider all relevant factors, a reluctance to take positive action of
any kind, and, ultimately, poor decisions.
Perhaps if we had had clear authority, and those in authority had the
support of guidelines answering these kinds of questions, I would have
had a response saying that my complaint had been considered, but
wasn't considered justified. I would have found that disappointing
but I wouldn't have felt the need to pursue it.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21511.22008.396527.517...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
