>>>>> "Christian" == Christian Kastner <c...@debian.org> writes:
Christian> However, (this part is a setup for my next answer) for
Christian> any given body of people and one unspecific norm, it is
Christian> possible for two individuals of said body to arrive at
Christian> conflicting interpretations, which calls for one or more
Christian> processes to resolve that conflict.
>>> 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?
Christian> Answering the second question first: my interpretation of
Christian> mediation in this context is a resolution process for the
Christian> aforementioned conflicting interpretations, whereby one
Christian> or more neutral roles (eg: DPL or A-H) attempt a
Christian> resolution in cooperation with the involved parties.
Christian> I see this form of mediation helping to draw that line
Christian> because (a) it gives all parties an opportunity to have
Christian> their side heard, (b) it demonstrates that those drawing
Christian> the line have sufficiently engaged in understanding the
Christian> problem, and (c) it sends a clear signal that we as a
Christian> project aim to solve conflicts cooperatively.
Thanks for a well reasoned reply.
I have a couple of concerns.
First, it sounds like you'd have an interaction where reporters,
respondents and the DPL (or AH) might all be talking together.
If As a reporter I'm being bullied, I don't want to talk to my bully at
all.
If the process makes me confront my bully, I'm not going to feel safe.
I have no desire to debate with my bully whether their behavior is
consistent with our code of conduct.
Typically the DPL or the AH team sits in the middle and exchanges
separate mails with both sides.
Also, typically neither the DPL nor the AH team is entirely neutral.
They are more aligned with creating a welcoming community than is
entirely consistent with neutrality.
Next point.
I agree that we need a way to have a disagreement about whether some
issue is or is not a violation of the code of conduct.
I don't think we want that to be a default part of handling a given
issue.
Often discussing whether something is a violation tends to escalate the
conflict significantly.
You have what starts as a relatively simple problem. Someone is
aggressive on a list.
You ask them to stop.
They debate whether they are agressive. Quickly both sides have heals
dug in.
Having someone who is presumed to be able to interpret the code of
conduct helps a lot. Yes you want a procedure for overriding them.
Yes, you want to have community discussions about interesting corner
cases.
But being able to say that a particular behavior strongly defaults to
being inconsistent with our code of conduct can really help de-escalate
the situation.
You can then move onto a discussion of why someone is being
aggressive. Enrico's "hey, is everything OK over there." Or my "Would
you like help trying to accomplish your goals in a more constructive
manner?"
Although I also have some significant points of agreement. I do think
that spending the time to hear someone is essential. I think we often
drop that step and people are bitter about it years later.
I find your three lettered points a very interesting set of points.
I'm just not entirely sure where in the process they fit.
Again, I really appreciate your engagement here.
--Sam
