[It feels like I've been writing a lot of these messages lately. I think this is the last thread I know I'll be starting on -project this week. It's likely I will be starting another thread on debian-private later in the week. And then off to Debconf!]
Hi. During May and June I collected feedback about the Antiharassment Team from current and former members; from people who had interacted with the team; and from interested community members. I've attached a slide presentation that is slightly redacted from one I gave at the DA/AH/DPL meeting in June. I've also attached markdown sources that I ran through pandoc. I actually think that these results are consistent with what we've been seeing in discussions on debian-private and here. I think there's very broad support for the functions the antiharassment team is performing. There are a lot of people who expressed support for the Code of Conduct and for a team like AH. There are a few people concerned about potential problems we can run into in this work, but for example no one said that we shouldn't have a team working on conduct issues. Concerned individuals did raise issues of openness and avoiding chilling effects that they want us to be very careful of in this work. Unfortunately, there are serious concerns about our current implementation. It's my opinion as DPL that two of these stand out as critical issues that must be addressed. The first is that the AH team is not sufficiently responsive. The second is that we need to do better at actually engaging in mediation. By that I mean helping people understand what changes in behavior we're looking for and how to accomplish their goals within our standards. I do not mean the AH team should routinely engage in debates about whether particular conduct is consistent with our standards. My hope is that by addressing these concerns we can build stronger trust in the team. I don't think the survey alone would be sufficient to bring these concerns to the level of critical issues that must be addressed. Surveys like this tend to attract strong positive and negative feedback. However, we got a lot of feedback earlier this year on debian-project and debian-private. First, a number of participants brought up these same issues in those discussions. However, what I find more significant is the comments made by people who expressed support for the AH team. At least from a number of participants, this support clearly envisioned an AH team that was responsive and that effectively helped members of our community be effective in their communication while following our standards. I'd appreciate feedback on everything here, bum I'd especially appreciate feedback on whether I've correctly identified the right concerns to address. It would also help to know whether my analysis that these are critical issues is correct. Thanks for your consideration. I'd also like to thank everyone who gave feedback. I was amazed at how constructive the process was. --SamTitle: Antiharassment Feedbac (Public)
% Antiharassment Feedbac (Public) % Sam Hartman % June 22, 2019 # Nature of Feedback * Feedback from 17 sources * Respondents; reporters;former and current team members; interested community members * Very constructive # Nature of Feedback (2) * Methodology tends to collect extreme negative and positive feedback, tending a bit toward negative * We probably also collect feedback from people who believe that earlier debian-private discussions do not validate their views * Only community discussion will validate if my reading of feedback represents a consensus; if the feedback is too off the mark we'll hear that when it is presented # Bdale on CoC Sam's summary of bdale's observation: * when the Social contract was adopted, everyone was basically in * The CoC is a new requirement * Several members do not consent When community values change without universal support, it will be hard. We may lose people. # Ah Has a Fan * Feedback from one respondent talking about how suggestions from AH have improved their communications and helped avoid frustration in the community * Positive feedback about the bigger issues AH has tackled # Debconf 17 Success * Multiple people talked about AH's success helping the Debconf 17 local team set up an incident level response team * Feedback that this is important # Ah Matters Significant feedback in support of the idea of an AH effort. One story described a particularly painful situation and talked about how if there had been an AH team back then, it would have been easier to handle. ::: fragment **Except** there was an AH team back then and the story even talked about how someone who (unbeknownst to the story teller) was an AH member was involved in trying to solve the situation. ::: # Ah Efforts Sound a lot like Oppression to Some * Our approach to antiharassment is particularly uncomfortable to those who have lived under oppressive governments * Are we achieving compliance with community guidelines by building understanding or through fear * We talk education; compare and contrast how education was used in the Cultural Revolution and in other totalitarian movements # Project Members are Silenced One story of a member of our community biting their nails in an audience at a talk. They wanted to participate but were afraid. They don't understand what the CoC means; they don't understand where the lines are. Will they cross some line and be forced to humiliate themselves in public or leave the project? The CoC obligates us to treat this person with respect; so far, we fail. # The AH Team is not Trusted * Significant fraction of feedback from people who would not trust the AH team if they were hurt; who would not trust the AH team to treat them reasonably as a respondent. ::: incremental * One respondent indicated that when faced with potential harassment they found it more effective to engage in their own bullying until their harasser left areas of Debian they cared about than to engage with the AH team. ::: # The AH Team is Not Trusted (2) * Almost universal feedback: the AH team is inadequately responsive to engage in discussions * Supported by current and former members; reporters; respondents * Effective mediation and education requires a very responsive interaction cycle # The AH Team is not Trusted (3) * AH's activities DO NOT correspond to what it claims to do in its explanation on the wiki page * Inadequate mention of policing on the wiki * feedback strongly suggests the name is actively harmful and contributes to lack of trust # Feedback about the Name * Activities extend beyond harassment and toward creating a generally inclusive enviroment * One person felt that the team was trying to tar all activity that didn't foster inclusiveness with harassment * Other respondents were not so articulate but seemed to support the same concern * Yet choosing a name that is too politically correct will alienate others # Listening to Respondents * The AH team (and da-manager) do not listen to the respondent's side before making a conclusion * There's a lot of evidence to support this is generally true * This seems to be causing significant social harm and distrust # Lack of Mediation We are not effective at offering to help people: * Getting conversation away from legalisms * Helping respondents understand what changes they would need to make * Helping respondents gain compassion for how their behavior affects others # There is a Double Standard * we take people to task who have conservative views * Yet those who support the CoC can bully with impunity * the list was different from different respondents, but the point is the same; when some people get taken to task publicly and others do not, it creates erroneous impressions * The implication here is very concerning: members of our community feel unwelcome because of inappropriate conduct and do not trust us to help them out # There is a Double Standard (2) * This feedback has a significant perceptual component that goes beyond any factual bias * The community does not (and **should not**) generally know who has received mail from AH * Supporters of the CoC are likely more able to interact with the AH team in a manner that appears constructive * Shared language * Shared values about what feels like an escalation # Writing Responses in a Group * It's really hard to be responsive and to engage in mediation when you write responses in a group in a periodic meeting * Multiple current/former members of the team indicated strong enough fear reaction that they would not have been able to write responses except in a team * It really helps if you have consensus on what is and is not a CoC issue. # Incident of Inappropriate Language * "inappropriate language" was a singularly bad phrasing in the most recent bits mail * Do we really need a team to tell people not to say "o, fuck" when things go wrong * Would have been better to emphasize that language was directed at a member of our community # Norbert's Apology * Norbert's apology was seen as groveling and humiliating by others in the project * Personal opinion: We must find ways of expressing regrets that let us grow rather than belittling ourselves in our own eyes or others * Personal opinion: We must make it easy for people to see themselves expressing regrets and learning from actions # Conflict of Interest * The DPl and several community members were concerned about conflicts of interest that existed in recent AH cases * Need for clear COI policy * Discussion with team indicates we also need good fallbacks when the team is too small for people to recuse # Involving the Community Awareness of core values needs to come from the project as a whole not just from an inside team # Project-Level Mandate How do we get to a project-level mandate for the AH task? * More support for mediation than policing * The team almost exclusively does policing # Project-Level Mandate (2) Dpl Opinion: * some level of policing is actually important, project buy-in or no. But mediation is critical. * Personal question: can mediation success along with clear documentation build trust that leads to project buy-in even for non mediation items?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
