Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it > is a threat of expulsion. The minimal possible solution to people > feeling threatened would be to not threaten them. That may not be > enough, but that would be a first step. Focusing on the feeling shifts > the blame and buries the lede.
It's a balance, because if people would always course-correct without being told they have to with someone with perceived authority, we would not be having this discussion because it wouldn't be necessary. I get the impression you think I'm hair-splitting, any communication from DAM is inherently a threat, and we should just accept that. I think it's true that any formal communication from someone who can kick people out of the project has some level of implied consequences, but I don't think it's true that we can't fine-tune the implication. I think it matters a lot whether it's public or private, for example, and whether we explicitly raise expulsion or not. That said, it is entirely possible that I am being far too optimistic about the number of people who are willing to ignore peer feedback but are willing to substantially change their behavior when they get DAM feedback. Maybe the people who are unwilling to accept feedback unless it comes from someone in perceived authority are already too harmful to the project to try to spend more time and energy on, and a direct warning of expulsion *is* the right way to go about it. I hope that isn't the case, but I admit that it's very worrisome when people won't hear peer feedback and I admit I personally don't want to spend a lot of time working with aggressively confrontational and draining people in the hope that they'll change. Regardless, though, I really do not like that we've backed ourselves into a corner that involves public shaming (even if it's not intended to be that) as part of the process. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
