On February 21, 2022 5:32:35 AM UTC, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote:
>Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:
>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 10:13:03 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I guess the other possibility is that people really want warnings to be
>>> way more serious than any meaning I personally would ascribe to the
>>> word "warning" and are thinking of them as formal project censure or
>>> something akin to that. In that case, my argument is that we need a
>>> warning that's actually just a warning, and the thing we've got is much
>>> too strong and the real problem is that we don't have something lighter
>>> touch.
>
>> Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred
>> execution.
>
>We have wildly different understandings of what a DAM warning is. Which
>clearly points to a problem that needs to be solved!
>
>> I think every non-government job I've had had a discipline process that
>> went:
>
>> 1. Verbal warning.
>> 2. Written warning.
>> 3. You're fired.
>
>> No, Debian isn't an employer, but I think the sense that DAM warnings
>> are used is similar.
>
>That seems like a mistake to me. Anything that makes Debian seem more
>like an employer seems like a mistake to me. We just aren't; we're a
>voluntary association that doesn't have any of the same requirements and
>does not have the employees or facilities to have the same type of formal
>process. We should actively avoid creating spurious parallels to
>employment processes that we are not following, going to follow, or are
>capable of following.
>
>> I agree with the idea that more feedback with a lighter touch would be a
>> good idea, but I think anything with a lighter touch doesn't need DAM to
>> do it. We are all empowered to provide other developers feedback when
>> we see concerning behavior. People just need to do it. It doesn't take
>> any new rules.
>
>We do need DAM to do it sometimes because sometimes people refuse to
>change their behavior unless someone with perceived authority tells them
>they need to. Otherwise, they just counter-attack and escalate with the
>person who tried to give them feedback.
>
>I'm not calling out anyone specific here. I truly don't have anyone
>specific in mind. This is just standard human stuff; in any sufficiently
>large group of people, and Debian is more than large enough, there are
>going to be a few people like that. It would be nice if peer feedback
>were always sufficient, but this isn't how humans work.
>
>Given that, and given that we clearly don't want to boot everyone who does
>that (even apart from the fact that the project is loathe to boot anyone
>for almost any reason, sometimes people really do change behavior once
>someone they can't just ignore points out the rules of the community),
>some sort of ability for someone with perceived authority to give a
>warning that's actually just a warning, not an "expulsion with deferred
>execution," is useful.
I think that makes sense, but I think it's really pretty much the same thing.
The "perceived authority" that means people treat feedback from DAM differently
is the authority to suspend or expell. Ultimately and unavoidably, a DAM
warning comes with an undercurrent of that authority.
If you want a warning without the threat, then don't have it come from DAM.
This is not an easy problem to solve. Unfortunately I don't think there's a
group in the project that is broadly credible enough to take it on based on
moral authority alone.
Ultimately Debian would be a better place if we were more open to listening to
each other.
Scott K
