In the past, I’ve seen some communities to wither because of a toxic person violently pushed their agenda on everybody.
This is certainly following the similar pattern. That’s my first and last 2 cents to this discussion. Ondřej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> > On 4 Feb 2019, at 07:29, Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.pro> wrote: > >> 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? > >
