[Replying in a personal capacity here.] Christian,
On 10/07/2019 06:45, Christian Kastner wrote: > However, if there's one thing I've learned from reading -project and > especially -private in the recent past, it's that where this line is > drawn seems to be entirely unclear, and an unclear rule rarely (if ever) > results in an improvement of things. This is true, and makes things more difficult for everybody involved. It is a direct consequence of how the CoC is written, but I am not sure there is a reasonable way to have a line clearly drawn without drastically weakening the usefulness of the CoC. I think there were long discussions about this very question back in the day when the CoC was being drafted. > Hence, I not only personally like Sam's idea of mediation, I believe it > is essential to actually drawing that line. I believe it is essential to > leading to improvement. How do you see mediation helping draw that line? (Not a rhetorical question, I am honestly curious). Also, there are different ways to interpret the word mediation, what is your interpretation in this context? > On the other hand, a complete rejection of mediation can lead to cases > such as the following, where I cannot see the positive effect of A-H > enforcement at all. On the contrary, I find this utterly confusing, and > mails like these lead me to actively question whether I should even > publicly disagree with someone on a list, lest it be considered > harassment (this is not hyperbole, I can give an example on -private > where simple disagreement led to an A-H report). Please note that the case referred there was not simply about a disagreement on a mailing list, and A-H did not produce any report: as far as I know (I was not part of the team back then), the team only involvement was giving support to the people raising the complaint to DAM. -- Martina Ferrari (Tina, the artist formerly known as Tincho)
