Hi all, On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:25 AM Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> wrote: > <snip> > For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm worried > I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single mistake", please give > it a rest already. These are basic principles on how we want all > people to interact. <snip>
I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC itself. Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people are worrying: 1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected) 2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them 3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually separated to reduce confirmation bias) 4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?) I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they cannot provide it. IANADD, but the limited information available about the process and the outcomes is difficult in a community that is typically as transparent as possible, and I think it is reasonable for people to have concerns about a closed process. Any information that can be provided about the process would probably help with these concerns -- and it should be published somewhere other than mailing list archives. This situation is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is interpreting it. Maybe writing a more in-depth document on the a-h team's interpretation of the CoC would help (examples of bad behavior, examples of behavior that although someone might be offended, is not forbidden)? In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the offending post before doing so). However, I only have half of the story. Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal proceedings). This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is interpreting it. Maybe writing a more in-depth document on what the a-h team expects and what kind of behavior is the most common or most disruptive would help? (As an aside: I have noticed a tendency on the lists for people to pick out the point they think is the worst in an email, beat on it repeatedly, and ignore the rest of the argument -- this has the very negative side-effect of making people feel like their main point has not been and will not be heard.) -- Eldon Koyle
