On 04/02/2019 02:16, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:38:54AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> It is a fact that both Lamb and de Blanc have stated at various times >> during 2018 that they didn't have time to talk to people. It is also a >> fact that multiple people have complained that Debian leadership figures >> are too busy to talk to them. Is it acceptable for them to skip over >> talking to people and rush to enforcement simply because they are busy? > Yes, it is. > > The first duty of the DPL and any delegates is to the Debian Project as a > whole, not to any individual developer. If the appropriate delegates have > determined that an individual developer's behavior is damaging to the > project, they are absolutely justified in enforcing first. > > Restorative justice is a worthwhile goal, but it is a luxury. It is not the > responsibility of the Debian Project to rehabilitate every contributor who > it's determined has overstepped boundaries. Even ignoring the effect of bad > actors, that constitutes an open-ended committment. And even if the > project's representatives HAVE made a committment to rehabilitation, it is > STILL acceptable to enforce FIRST if in their sole judgement this is > necessary in order to limit any ongoing damage. > > If you don't understand this, then it is unsurprising to me if enforcement > escalates. >
Is that a threat?
