>>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez <robe...@debian.org> writes:
Roberto> I'm afraid that you miss the point. I specifically chose
Roberto> flat earth, & co., as a contrast. My position is that we
Roberto> are all adults, capable of deciding for ourselves and that,
Roberto> absent some behavior that is a clear violation of the Code
Roberto> of Conduct and/or mailing list rules (e.g., harassment),
Roberto> simply uttering something that some people do not like does
Roberto> not form cause for removing someone, or even for issuing
Roberto> any sort of warning. Else, why bother having a Code of
Roberto> Conduct and mailing list rules?
So, I think that this boils down to one of the big disagreements that is
challenging at least the part of the world where I live in.
You can put it several ways.
Are killfiles effective?
Is ignoring people sufficient?
Are communities harmed by long discussions even when everyone can
ignore the discussion.
Or if you view things a bit differently... Are communities harmed by
bullshit? Does not taking steps to limit classes of ideas (even when
people can ignore them) create the perception those ideas are tolerated
in the community? Does such tolerance make classes of people feel
unwelcome?
Does lack of tolerance of those ideas make classes of people unwelcome?
We're all adults and we can just ignore that is an idea that some of us
have come to reject. For people like me, Russ, Steve, and a few
others, I think coming to that conclusion took years. I certainly know
that I started out somewhere close to where you are today.
For other members of our community who lacked certain privileges in the
context of Debian and the Internet, I suspect coming to the conclusion
that killfiles and ignoring was insufficient took a lot less time.
For myself, it's quite clear that people are not actually *just adults
that ignore it*.
There are lots of reasons for that. Some of them I regret--like how in
a community where we all have a voice we tend to debate everything,
rather than asking ourselves whether we need to participate. Which is
to say that there is a human tendency against just ignoring it even when
we can.
Other ideas I find I do not regret like the idea that I will not stand
for people being hurt in the community because of who they are.
(And yes, I understand there are members of the community who believe
hurt should only be used in relation to physical actions--I find myself
not in agreement with that.)
I was not involved in actions taken in response to Thomas's messages. I
cannot remember if I was a DAM trainee during any part of that, but my
recollection is that I was never involved in any significant way.
I was definitely not involved in DAM when he was expelled from the
project; I even sent mail questioning a small part of DAM's message.
But I can respond in the general context and comment on how I think
about just ignoring Thomas's ideas if I disagreed with them.
It's quite clear to me that many people were going to respond to
Thomas's conspiracy theories. They did.
They did not just ignore it.
It was disruptive, and disruptive of Debian's mission.
This was true even before DAM acted.
Even before any action was taken, people were not ignoring Thomas's
messages.
Thomas's messages were disrupting our mailing lists in a way that is in
my mind inconsistent with our mailing list rules.
Creating a huge stir of off-topic messages--creating a flame war as we
used to call it--is and ought to be inconsistent with the mailing list
rules.
DAM sent Thomas a warning, and in discussions with Thomas he *agreed not
to do it again*.
Trust is important.
If in a proceeding with DAM you make some promise about your future
behavior, and then later violate that promise, that's a big deal.
In my mind, going back on your word in a situation like that very much
is an actionably big deal.
And DAM acted.
It might have been different if Thomas wrote to DAM and said that after
consideration, he thought DAM was wrong and he would not be able to
abide by his promise. Thomas and DAM could have figured out how to
approach that--Thomas could for example have tried to get support for a
GR if he felt DAM was being unreasonable in expecting such a promise.
But if you say you're not going to do something, and you then go do it
without withdrawing your commitment, you have broken trust.
Trust is really important in our community. DDs have a lot of power. I
support DAM in acting when people break trust with them or with the
community.
--Sam
