Re: Wiki defence WAS: Wiki problem
On Nov 22, 2017 14:51, "Geert Stappers" wrote: On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 07:36:49PM +, bili...@firemail.cc wrote: Please translate > Can you do something about the debian wiki, they ban VPNs into } The VPNs I use have for some reason a bad reputation. } I don't gonna tell which VPNs I use, but have to reconsider } the reputation of those VPNs, so that I can access your wiki. That is not how a lift of a ban works. The point he was trying to raise is that that he is unable to view the wiki (read only access) from these assesses. I did not get the impression from his original message that he wants to "lift" a ban. I think he is suggesting that it might be reasonable to only block write access rather than all access from known spammer addresses (if it is technically feasible). -- Eldon
Re: Censorship in Debian
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 4:46 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Daniel Pocock writes:
>
> > and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience
> > and scientific research.
> In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you
> could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian
> developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized
> human rights (!!).
I think this response was as much an escalation as the initial post.
Daniel, have you contacted the anti-harassment team about the abuse you
have experienced?
> I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet
> Debian. When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really
> meant that. But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach
> to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project.
I think this is probably where we should have started. The initial removal was
by Chris Lamb for "referring to Sage Sharp as an 'it'" in one of his
posts [1]. It
appears that was replaced with "their", which Norbert believed was sufficient to
have his blog re-added, and Chris reverted the commit a few days later. I think
Chris handled it very well by documenting the issue and providing evidence.
Later, the blog was removed again [2][3] and again[4] by anti-harassment team
members citing an "anti-harassment team decision". There is no indication of
how much interaction there was with Norbert on the decision (if any).
I think the heart of the issue is that the removal is public, but the
reason does not
appear to be. Perhaps we need more transparency as to the why when the
anti-harassment team makes a decision as drastic as removing content, along
with the evidence? Then, at least we could know what we are arguing about here.
AFAICT, rule number 2 ("try not to annoy people")[5] for planet debian could be
the justification for removal (I'm assuming the issue at hand is the same post
that caused the initial removal, but I don't see it referenced in his
blog feed[6]
anymore). A cursory glance at the feed didn't yield anything appalling to my
sensibilities, but I'm not good at finding a single offensive word in an entire
blog.
> > Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way
> > across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening
> > messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the
> > physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former. Those
> > people should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> Yeah, no shit. Your lack of awareness that *you* are that person who
> should be ashamed of yourself because that's what *you* just did is
> honestly mind-blowing.
Bad behavior does not condone more bad behavior. This comment seems
a little mean-spirited. It is OK to disagree with how he brought his issue up,
but being abusive to someone because you think they were abusive just
makes the problem worse.
A lot of technical people are not that great with social interaction
(I believe it is
the reason many people are drawn to those fields; for me computers are more
predictable than people). I think we would do ourselves a great disservice by
not recognizing this and just pushing people away for the crime of not knowing
how to interact with others. We should be teaching them instead, by example
if nothing else.
[1]
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/216930f1f3f906ef4cc28457b94d10ba844e3074
[2]
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/99662c1548fac57813e5288002e3c6eeccf25ec6
[3]
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/d2d7125b53dc4a2e832a5780013e29518c2420bc
[4]
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/04651823388de3a573d25158b2d59dce62a24540
[5] https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian
[6] http://www.preining.info/blog/feed/?lang=en
--
Eldon Koyle
Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct
Hi all, On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:25 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm worried > I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single mistake", please give > it a rest already. These are basic principles on how we want all > people to interact. I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC itself. Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people are worrying: 1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected) 2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them 3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually separated to reduce confirmation bias) 4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?) I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they cannot provide it. IANADD, but the limited information available about the process and the outcomes is difficult in a community that is typically as transparent as possible, and I think it is reasonable for people to have concerns about a closed process. Any information that can be provided about the process would probably help with these concerns -- and it should be published somewhere other than mailing list archives. This situation is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is interpreting it. Maybe writing a more in-depth document on the a-h team's interpretation of the CoC would help (examples of bad behavior, examples of behavior that although someone might be offended, is not forbidden)? In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the offending post before doing so). However, I only have half of the story. Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal proceedings). This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is interpreting it. Maybe writing a more in-depth document on what the a-h team expects and what kind of behavior is the most common or most disruptive would help? (As an aside: I have noticed a tendency on the lists for people to pick out the point they think is the worst in an email, beat on it repeatedly, and ignore the rest of the argument -- this has the very negative side-effect of making people feel like their main point has not been and will not be heard.) -- Eldon Koyle
Re: Censorship in Debian
Hi Philip, On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:45 PM Philip Hands wrote: > > Christian Kastner writes: > > > We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government. > > However, I argue that censorship is within these limits. > > Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account, > let alone apply even the lightest form of coercion to someone. If you value your status as a Debian Developer (which the project _can_ take away), then the Debian project _does_ have some ability to coerce you. What would you be willing to do to keep your status as a DD? > Alleging that removal of such privileges amounts to an infringement of > rights[1] simply makes no sense. > [1] using the word "censorship" suggests a belief in a right to demand > syndication for one's blog, which is not a right I'm aware of. In regards to the use of the word 'censorship', looking at the definition[1][2][3] of the word seems to support its use in regards to a-h removing feeds from planet for being objectionable (and does not imply any infringement on rights). Whether that form of censorship is good or bad or rights-infringing is a separate argument. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship 1: "The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship 1b: "the actions or practices of censors" [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor 1a: "an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter" -- Eldon Koyle
Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct
Hi Jonathan, On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:34 PM Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 11:26:11AM -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote: > > I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC > > itself. Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few > > who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people > > are worrying: > > So, responding to those points in turn (and bearing in mind that this is > not an official statement of any kind): > > > 1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected) > > Process of what? It's true that the relationship between AH and DAM is new > and we're finding how best to work together, but that's not really a > process. I should have said "expulsion process". I assumed there was a process to ensure expulsions (or recommendations for expulsion) were handled fairly, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my initial message. This was not about planet, etc. but the removal of DD status. > > 2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them > > That's a rather simplistic view. Cases reaching AH and DAM typically do so > as a last resort after going through many iterations of feedback. > > > 3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually > > separated to reduce confirmation bias) > > Except that they can't actually *do* anything above and beyond and ordinary > DD. AH are not delegated and don't have any special powers; it's up to > maintainers of services whether their recommendations are implemented. > They do have a position of trust, even if they don't have powers. > > 4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted > > If you have suggestions of how to open proceedings up without compromising > the confidence expectations of any of the involved parties, we'd all be > delighted to hear them. It's a hard problem, it always has been. > > > 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?) > > The ultimate appeal is through a GR, but that's a pretty blunt tool. We > have proposals in discussion internally already to make this better. > > > I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them > > understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might > > have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before > > starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they > > cannot provide it. > > What is it that leads you to believe it then? I am assuming positive intent, and it is also how I imagined AH was supposed to work, but I may have been making incorrect assumptions about any informal procedures that exist there as well. > > In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him > > after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the > > project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which > > although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the > > offending post before doing so). However, I only have half of the story. > > If you have only one half of a story, it is dangerous to draw absolute > conclusions from it. That is why I mentioned that I only have half of the story, but it is also exactly the problem I have with #2 -- if we don't give people the opportunity to address accusations against them, we are operating on half of the story. > > Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward > > guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about > > the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for > > evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the > > reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal > > proceedings). > > Other people have expressed far more cogently than I can how Debian, AH and > DAM are very much not courts and these are not legal proceedings. Debian is > a private members organisation and is governed primarily by its own > foundation documents. > Although AH is not a court, I feel that extreme measures should be applied as fairly as possible. Courts were designed with this purpose in mind, and that is why I made the comparison. I think a process for expulsion would assuage peoples fears, even if it doesn't resemble a court proceeding -- as long as it gives them a chance to give their side of the story and be heard by someone who hasn't been searching for evidence against them. > > This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be &g
Re: Censorship in Debian
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Miles Fidelman
wrote:
>
> On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> >>>> On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>>> [systemd stuff]
> >>>> [systemd stuff]
> > The process that was followed was:
> >
> > - the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
> > default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
> > - the TC decided.
> > - the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
> > GR.
> >
> > I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
> > Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
> > that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
> > project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
> > decision that they disagree with.
>
>
> Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the
> Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too
> "personalized."
>
> Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the
> decision, who did not have a seat at the table. Those of us who rely on
> Debian in production, for example. Upstream developers for another.
> Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a
> "franchise," others found out after the fact. Seems to me that lack of
> representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.
>
I think one of the reasons Debian is able to function as well as it has is
because they aren't required to put stuff out to a vote from the entire
planet. Having technical people (developers) make technical decisions
seems appropriate, even if you disagree with the decision as a user.
There are just as many people who would be griping about sysvinit at this
juncture. Yes, it was nice to know what your init system was doing, but
there are a lot of features that are not provided by sysvinit but are provided
by systemd.
> >
> > To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
> > outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
> > else get their way.
> >
> > To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
> > palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.
> >
> > Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
> > personally had been consulted. But that doesn't scale, and provides no
> > basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.
>
> Personally, as someone who's been involved in other organizations, and
> governance processes, I disagree, on all points. I also suggest that
> your categorical rejection of the possibility that things could be done
> better, is illustrative of the toxicity of the current process.
I think part of the toxicity is inherent in communicating via a mailing list.
It is very easy to feel attacked when someone points out a problem with
your argument (especially if you disagree with their counterpoints) -- even
more so when you have spent hours trying to make a logical argument that
hopefully won't offend anyone.
--
Eldon Koyle
Re: Realizing Good Ideas with Debian Money
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 5:08 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > My biggest high level concern is the income side, since this is the most > > difficult part and will likely also be the most controversial one. > > I could well be entirely wrong, but the part that I would expect to be the > most controversial is that, once Debian starts spending project money to > pay people to do work that other people in the project are doing for free, > the project is doing a form of picking winners and losers. We're deciding > as a project that some people's work is valuable enough to pay for and (by > omission if nothing else) other people's work is not, and for all the good > intentions that we have going in, there are so many ways for this to go > poorly. I think this is a very real concern. What if payment was structured as task bounties rather than hiring full-time employees? Then the payment becomes an acknowledgement that a task is undesirable or time consuming, rather than a status symbol. -- Eldon Koyle
Re: Debian supports pridemonth?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:30 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > On 2019/06/28 11:48, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > > I do not think that this is appropriate. Welcoming diversity is one > > thing, supporting pridemonth is another thing. Pridemonth is a set of > > events with a definite political connotation. > > Probably a bit of a stretch to call it political. As far as I > understand, all that it's about is a shared stance against bigotry and > letting people know that it's ok to be different and that we accept > people from a wide variety of walks of life. Seems in line with our > current policies so I don't really see much of an issue there. It is no stretch to call pridemonth political. It is organized by extremely political groups in an effort to further political and societal goals (regardless of how you view their goals). Or are you claiming that it is a stretch to call the logo change a political statement? -- Eldon Koyle
Re: Debian supports pridemonth?
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:24 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > > Gerardo Ballabio writes: > > > Clearly, there must be a prior assessment that any particular group's > > values are aligned with Debian's values. > > Sure, of course. > > > And I don't think that this is, or should be, within the bounds of the > > Publicity Team delegation. > > I think this is probably the place where we disagree. > > That said, how *do* you want to handle this, assuming that other people in > the project do want to acknowledge important events for our community > members? For example, Debian has made note of Diwali in the past in > various ways (arguably less obviously than changing the logo, to be fair), > and it's been entirely uncontroversial. I think a big part of the issue here is the fact that by changing the logo for only one group ever (presumably for one month out of every year?), all other groups are marginalized. Would the Debian community be willing to change the debian.org logo for any group who a.) submits a suitable image file and b.) is aligned with the Debian diversity statement? If not, then what are the other conditions, and who makes these decisions on behalf of the community? How do we ensure that Debian remains unbiased outside the realm of free software? (As an aside, I think having the pridemonth logo on the diversity statement page[1] sends the wrong message for this same reason.) How would the community respond if the logo were changed in support of a fictitious "Male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Celebration Week", for example? According to the diversity statement, Debian welcomes individuals who fit in that group just as much as any other, and that group is strongly represented among Debian contributors. One other reason for some level of controversy is the lack of precedent (at least that I could find). [1] https://www.debian.org/intro/diversity -- Eldon Koyle
Re: Debian supports pridemonth?
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:49 PM Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > Regardless of what some folk say about pridemonth - it is deeply, > deeply, sadly, ironic and painful that folk are arguing about > pridemeonth in mails interleaved even as a valued contributor announces > she is trans. > > Tina - welcome to a life of having to defend your every move in every > social and anti-social situation - but welcome regardless and with every > good wish, as ever, > > Andy C. > It's unfair to conflate concerns about how the Debian project observed pridemonth with some kind of ill-will for those who celebrate (or are celebrated by?) it. -- Eldon Koyle
Re: Debian supports pridemonth?
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:24 PM Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Eldon" == Eldon Koyle writes: > > Eldon> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:49 PM Andrew M.A. Cater > wrote: > >> > Eldon> > >> Regardless of what some folk say about pridemonth - it is deeply, > >> deeply, sadly, ironic and painful that folk are arguing about > >> pridemeonth in mails interleaved even as a valued contributor > >> announces she is trans. > >> > >> Tina - welcome to a life of having to defend your every move in > >> every social and anti-social situation - but welcome regardless > >> and with every good wish, as ever, > >> > >> Andy C. > >> > > Eldon> It's unfair to conflate concerns about how the Debian project > Eldon> observed pridemonth with some kind of ill-will for those who > Eldon> celebrate (or are celebrated by?) it. > > Perhaps. > But acknowledging pain we cause in our community is important. > > For those of us in the LGBTQ+ community, I think it is likely to hurt > when we're trying to reaffirm that we're welcome in the project and > that ends up being controversial. > > Remember we didn't just blanket support Pride Month. > We talked about what that meant to Debian: > https://bits.debian.org/2019/06/diversity-and-inclusion.html > > That blog post is about what joining Pride celebrations means to > Debian. > And it is directly and completely about inclusion. > I had not seen that post before, and I don't see it referenced elsewhere in this thread. I think this thread started with a fundamental misunderstanding on the meaning/purpose of the logo. From that post, it sounds like it is not intended specifically as a pride logo, but a logo for diversity in general used by the diversity team. That actually changes a lot for me. Maybe it was discussed on another list which I do not follow. > And yeah, when that ends of being controversial it hurts. > And discussing and arguing about it is draining. > > And I'm sure that this is draining for people with different positions. > And I hear people's worry and frustration when they are concerned that > Debian is making political statements that they disagree with. > > So perhaps this discussion needs to happen. > And sometimes we need to experience pain as a community. > > But I ask you not to deny that pain. Do not pretend that it's "just > concerns," and that there is not a real cost to the discussion. > Have it if you need to, but have compassion for everyone involved. > For me, these _are_ honest concerns -- and I would have the same concerns about using any debian logo that was for a specific group (it appears this one was not, I believe that was the misunderstanding that led to this thread) -- namely how do we fairly decide which groups should get their own logos on debian.org and on which days without becoming very political? I apologize if my message was dismissive or otherwise unsympathetic, it wasn't intended as such. The message I was replying to felt like an outright attack against anyone who had voiced concerns, and I did not feel the claims were accurate. > And yeah, having your coming out within the Debian community and having > it drop in the middle of this is damn well going to hurt. > > I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong by causing pain. But I am > asking you to show compassion. > > --Sam -- Eldon Koyle On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:24 PM Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Eldon" == Eldon Koyle writes: > > Eldon> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:49 PM Andrew M.A. Cater > wrote: > >> > Eldon> > >> Regardless of what some folk say about pridemonth - it is deeply, > >> deeply, sadly, ironic and painful that folk are arguing about > >> pridemeonth in mails interleaved even as a valued contributor > >> announces she is trans. > >> > >> Tina - welcome to a life of having to defend your every move in > >> every social and anti-social situation - but welcome regardless > >> and with every good wish, as ever, > >> > >> Andy C. > >> > > Eldon> It's unfair to conflate concerns about how the Debian project > Eldon> observed pridemonth with some kind of ill-will for those who > Eldon> celebrate (or are celebrated by?) it. > > Perhaps. > But acknowledging pain we cause in our community is important. > > For those of us in the LGBTQ+ community, I think it is likely to hurt > when we&#
Re: Debian for blind people
Hello Pierre, The accessibility list would probably be the best place to ask questions. I'm copying them. There is a little bit of information in the install guide at https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch05s02.html.en . There is also a wiki page at https://wiki.debian.org/accessibility . -- Eldon On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 17:18 Pierre Gaumond wrote: > Hello, > I'm on Windows 8.1 and the voice synthesis JAWS 16. > In the past, I worked on Unix (System V and Berkeley). I really liked Unix. > I liked GNU gcc, sed and Emacs as well as Vi. I appreciated the on-line > documentation on the /man/ directory. > Unfortunately I became blind some years ago. > What I expect from Debian is a screen review and voice synthesis that > would be integrated to the system as strongly as VoiceOver is integrated > to iOS on an iPhone or an iPad. > Besides going on Internet with a browser (like Firefox or Google Chrome) > or sending e-Mails (like Thunderbird) or managing my folders and files, > I want to program in some languages such as C, C++, Objective-C or Swift > if it would be possible. > I like Vim and Emacs. I know about EmacSpeak. I could be interested to > write or modify Elisp scripts. > I really don't like Windows editors because they introduce extra and > alien characters in the text. I don't need character policy. > I need a good file management that would tell me as an example, the > folder that contains the greatest number of files or the biggest files. > I wrote one on Unix but they lost the source code. > I would like to have available informations about each file: creation > date, last modification, last access to determine if the file is useful. > I would need two accounts, one as an administrator and one as a user. > These are the most evident needs that I can figure out. > Thanks for reading me. > Pierre > > -- > Pierre Gaumond > Montréal | Montreal (Qc) Canada > Envoyé de mon Intel I7 | Sent from my Intel I7 > >
Sounding board for Debian forums?
Hi all, Would it be reasonable to create some kind of sounding board to facilitate long or complex discussions? The format used in email lists (and social media in general) does not seem well-suited for long or complex discussions. It often leads to fragmentation (ie. repeating opinions across multiple subthreads), and I believe it encourages a bias toward commenting on things that people feel strongly about (usually in disagreement). I think a more structured and disciplined format could really help improve the quality of discussions, as well as reduce negative feelings toward people and email in general. I think redirecting a discussion to a different forum would also be more successful than simply trying to make it stop. Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion evolves? -- Eldon
Re: Results of the Antiharassment Team Survey
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:02 AM Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > > Gerardo > > (P.S. I'd appreciate if anyone could teach me how I can reply to a > message that I haven't received -- not being subscribed to the list -- > without breaking the thread.) > You need to set the In-Reply-To: header to the message-id of the message you are replying to. At the bottom of each message in the list archives there is a "Reply To:" section with links that should hopefully auto-populate the needed information in your mail client. -- Eldon Koyle
Re: Sounding board for Debian forums?
Hi All, On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Philip Hands wrote: > > Ben Finney writes: > > > Eldon Koyle writes: > > > >> Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their > >> claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts > >> individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion > >> evolves? > > > > Prior to considering technical solutions: Have you got any examples of > > real dispersed communities that are able to avoid the problems you you > > described? Yes, there are examples. Typically, they use forums that allow for moderation after-the-fact. There are even groups on Reddit that are quite civi (r/legaladvice is an example)l. All it takes is a devoted moderator and the ability to hide or remove posts that break the rules of the forum. > > Regardless of technology, I'm not aware of any forums that achieve the > > kind of formal structure you're talking about, because humans who need > > to have representative participation tend to be discouraged by greater > > formal or technical barriers. Although that may be true in general, the average Debian user tends to be a lot more technical than the average human being. I also submit that the current forum comes with some pretty serious barriers (the worst of which is that supportive comments are generally avoided to reduce noise, which increases the perceived negativity of the forum and also leads to strong disagreements and/or a feeling of posting into a vacuum). > > So what real-world examples would you point to as a counter to that > > tendency, and how do you think technology helps achieve that improvement > > in those real-world cases? I don't think a lack of a real-world example is a reason not to try something. I don't think Debian would exist if that were a requirement at the project's inception. > I'm not sure this addresses your concern directly, as I've no idea if it > has specifically been used by whatever you define as a "dispersed > community", but Minister Audrey Tang mentioned in her talk at DC18 that > they had used an interesting approach to sorting out the Uber vs. Taxi > vs. users situation in Taiwan, which you can see from something like the > 13th minute onwards, here: > > https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-minister-tang/ > > She gets onto the technical solution used in the 17th minute, which is > pol.is, which appears to be an open-core system, with the Free version > being here: > > https://github.com/pol-is/polisServer > > (Note the existence of a contributor agreement) > > The thing that impressed me about this (as described in the video) is > the way that it seems to amplify the constructive aspects of the > conversation. > > I can of course think of problems with using such a thing in Debian, the > main one being that unlike with government, one cannot just issue orders > to our volunteers, so it is entirely possible that everyone _not_ doing > some job in Debian are agreed on how it should be done, but not willing > to do it, while the people actually doing the job have another idea. I think the main value would be finding the common ground when disagreements arise, not making binding decisions. > However, if one is trying to reach a wide consensus, and the people > involved are willing to engage with such a system in order to try to > find out what people think, and interested to do whatever looks like the > consensus, and assuming we can ensure that we don't get invaded by > trolls, but equally are able to get non-debian people with legitimate > interests in whatever question to join in, it might be worth a look. > > Cheers, Phil. > -- > |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. > |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ > |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY Thanks Phil, that is the kind of thing I was looking for. I have also seen kialo[1] (which is proprietary) as an attempt to help people break down the discussion into individual ideas. I think their platform has a lot of shortcomings, but I like the idea of breaking arguments down into fundamental points and having a tool to help discuss each point in more depth without detracting from the main discussion. I also like that people can revise their statements. A permanent archive of every mistake you make in a discussion is quite daunting, and not really useful when your original statement is not understood as you intended. [1] https://kialo.com -- Eldon Koyle On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Philip Hands wrote: > > Ben Finney writes: > > > Eldon Koyle writes: > > > >> Is there some kind of software that coul
Re: Which idiot made Calamares used in Debian ?
Hi Michael, As I understand it, the Debian installer is and will continue to be the official, supported way to install Debian. I think the intent is to have Calamares as an additional option, not a preferred one. -- Eldon Koyle On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 16:00 michael caron couturier wrote: > The app is unaccessible for blind users fix your mess before adding crap > ... > > -- > Michaël C. Couturier > >
Language on Debian lists [was: Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC, lglg]
[I'm intentionally leaving context out of this message.] [PSA: The biggest holiday season for much of the Western world is approaching, which can be stressful for many people, as well as providing them with more time than usual to respond on Debian lists. Conditions are perfect for a repeat of last year's wildfire on -project. I would be filled with the deepest gratitude if we could use appropriate language during the upcoming flamewar[s] about a topic not directly related to free software.] There have been messages in this thread suggesting that people are being petty by complaining about language on Debian lists. If you feel that using obscene language is no big deal, then it is a small thing to ask you to refrain from using it on Debian mailing lists. It is also part of the Debian mailing list code of conduct[1], linked from the code of conduct page[2]. Take note of the fact that your use of inappropriate language could cause someone else to be fined or even lose their amateur radio license. It also contributes to a toxic environment, just as much as other CoC violations. I would also like to point out that ignoring the code of conduct in your response to someone else's misconduct both weakens your argument and the code if conduct itself. Someone else not following the rules is no excuse to ignore the rules yourself. I personally read Debian lists in professional settings, and I do not want that to become a liability to me. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to apply the same guidelines as the DebConf CoC[3], especially the part about being appropriate for all individuals aged 12 and older unless explicitly stated otherwise. Some assume that we are all adults here, however I don't think that is a verifiable assumption. [1] https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct [2] https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct [3] https://www.debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml
Moderated forum for Debian (was: Re: Merry Christmas more debian private leaks)
At this point, I think moderation would be a very useful tool for the community. The ability to end off-topic or offensive threads without commenting on them beyond "this topic is not appropriate here, so we are deleting/closing the thread" or "this was not appropriate in your post, please fix it" could help with a lot of messy situations. I'm unaware of any mailing lists with this capability (short of moderating every single message). IANADD, but I am willing to commit time to work on a pilot project to create a moderated forum for Debian (in addition to the existing Debian fora). I know Sam mentioned that the Gnome project has had some success with discourse when I asked about something similar in a previous thread[1]. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2019/07/msg00140.html -- Eldon
Re: debian-project@lists.debian.org//Erbitte Hilfe//majord...@lists.debian.org
I think he is having problems with the debian-user-german list (it was the first line of the email with no context, easy to miss). Also, I suspect he is not subscribed to -project, so he likely did not receive the reply (my German is limited to Google translate, or I would help more). -- Eldon On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 01:59 Probe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:39:28AM +, tobias schwibingerr wrote: > > debian-user-ger...@lists.debian.org > > > > > > hallo warum funktioniert email gruppe nicht? > > gruss whyskyh...@yahoo.de > > > Wass ist gemeint mit 'email gruppe funktioniert nicht'? > > > Probe > >
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov writes: > > > > Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone > Ihor> should make their own. > > I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with you > it has gotten long. > > A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue will look > at the summary and say that yes, that looks good. > > I strongly suspect you've missed there. > I think more of your personal bias comes through into this summary than > would be ideal. Hi Sam, It would probably be more helpful to make concrete content suggestions than to simply state that you don't think he did a good job of summarizing. I think Ihor's summary very helpful, and he invited comments if people disagree or think he missed something. He obviously spent a lot of time reading the threads, and I think your comment came off a lot more negatively than you intended. -- Eldon
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:48 AM Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given > > "cons" category which you see as positives? > > > The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is > interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community > discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group > of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to > help with the way categories are organised, for example. If I had a vote, I would vote to move this discussion to a test Discourse instance, since that will eliminate a lot of the confirmation bias (in favor of mailing lists), as well as force people to become familiar with the software before making a judgement. AIUI, Discourse is intended to be a way of turning questions/discussions into documentation without requiring a bunch of extra work (which is the reason for some of the features people are calling out, like allowing edits to another user's comments). If our goal is to have something exactly like a mailing list, we are wasting our time. Also, privacy concerns keep coming up... For me, the mailing lists are actually much more concerning wrt privacy than having Discourse track me internally. I can take back or re-word a comment on that platform. Having discussions in the public record forever is daunting. To me, my comments are a lot more sensitive than my habits -- and the current system doesn't give me _any_ control over past comments. My email headers are stored online, publicly, forever when I use the Debian lists. We get a lot of posts from people who don't understand the implications of that, and everyone involved in this discussion has already decided to accept that trade-off. -- Eldon
Re: Keysigning in times of COVID-19
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 5:04 PM Sam Hartman wrote: > Until you have a concrete suggestion, you're derailing the discussion. > Enrico and a number of people sound like they would like a way forward > that works for people trying to become DMs today. > When I hear things like "eventually have a GR," that's on an entirely > different scope than they are asking about. Would it be a reasonable compromise to start a new thread rather than just quashing any deeper discussion? -- Eldon
Abusive language on Debian lists
I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see: 1) a polarizing issue is brought up on the list 1a) (optional) there is some discussion with a few interesting points 2) people start arguing (useful debate has ended) 3) people start using offensive language somehow expecting it to help the situation (while also feeling justified in breaking the rules because someone else broke a different, "more important" rule) 4) someone points out the offensive language in #4 is, in fact, against the rules 5) someone claims that the act of pointing out the offensive language detracts from the argument^Wdiscussion or human dignity or what have you (I think it was actually the decision to break the "lesser" rule) I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule to bounce messages to public lists at #3 (ie. those containing language that is unquestionably against both the Code of Conduct and the mailing list code of conduct) with a message asking the sender to please revise their message and links to the relevant documents stating what is acceptable (as if they don't already know). The common belief seems to be that "we are all adults here", but we haven't been acting that way. If there are cries about censorship, I guess we could make the bounce a "warning: you are about to break the rules so blatantly that software can figure it out in front of the whole internet, do you want to continue?" -- but I think we should also have more deterrents for breaking the rules in this case. -- Eldon
Re: Abusive language on Debian lists
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:52 AM wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:22:57PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote: > > I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see: > > [...] > > > I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule > > to bounce messages to public lists at #3 [...] > > The problem with this is... who is going to do that? > > - If you have just a few in charge, their biases will dominate: > what is and is not offending is bound to interpretation; > - if you have some formal process in charge (voting, etc.), > someone has to bear its burden; > - etc. etc. > > In short, you are posing That One Very Hard Question™: how does > a group of people manage "getting along together"? > > You're not the first one to pose it, mind you :-) > > I think the current set-up in the Debian mailing lists is a good > equilibrium: there is a moderation, but it only intervenes in > exceptional cases. Usually, intervention is from the participants > in the list. > Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have not seen this class of words used constructively in lists, and they are already forbidden. I don't think it would be fair to ask moderators to police these words. There would be a cost to them both in time and in relationships with others. I feel these words always contribute to a toxic environment, however they are being used intentionally by people I respect who hold a lot of influence in this group, in open defiance of the accepted rules. Using a small shell script (or regex) to catch the strongest of language (that should never be used anyway) seems like a simple way to slow escalation in many cases. -- Eldon
Re: Abusive language on Debian lists
Preface: Some people may consider it petty to care about this. I am not trying to be petty. I honestly feel sad and hurt every time I see this language on these lists. The language over the last few weeks has me feeling sick inside. I'll admit that I'm likely in a small minority here, but I do not believe that I am the only person who feels this way. On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 4:08 AM Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Eldon" == Eldon Koyle writes: > > Eldon> Thank you for your thoughtful reply. > > Eldon> I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about > Eldon> English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have > Eldon> not seen this class of words used constructively in lists, > Eldon> and they are already forbidden. > > I'd be against that. > I think the blanket prohibition of profanity in the list code of > conduct is outdated and harmful. > Does the belief that a rule is harmful somehow nullify the rule? Does the belief that a rule is outdated give you license to disregard it? I cannot accept either of these points. If you think the rule needs updated, you should go through proper channels to try to update it rather than simply disregard it. > But I think a blanket prohibition would be harmful: > > * Sometimes you are quoting others or quoting something with artistic or > literary value. I have not seen much of this, however as a counterpoint: the FCC is not a tolerant organization. People have subscribed to these lists using packet radio. The language in your last reply was such that the FCC would absolutely take official action against anyone who _received_ it (if it came to their attention, that is). I hope nobody is doing this anymore, but it makes me sad that we are unwilling to support people doing interesting things in a Debian context. > * Tone policing is a thing. If I understand the argument against tone policing correctly, it is that focusing on the language/tone within the discussion detracts from the main point of the message. If the message were sent back for revision before it was posted to the list, I think that would actually be a net win as it reduces the chance of tone policing on the list -- especially where it would be done by a machine with no emotion involved. I think the project at large would have been better off if all of the recent messages with profanity had been kicked back for revision. > * Sometimes profanity directed at a situation really does let you get > off a little steam. Getting off steam often leads to escalation. Also, these lists have a lot of members. Does an individual's desire for catharsis outweigh the wish of multiple people to keep the language on the list free of profanity? I apologize to anyone who feels I am wasting their time with this, and I will try not to drag it out any more. -- Eldon
Re: Abusive language on Debian lists
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:12 PM Don Armstrong wrote: > I can't recall a case of listmaster@ actually enforcing the prohibition > of profanity, and I'm unaware of anyone actually using packet radio for > receiving listmail anymore. [If they are, I really hope it's encrypted.] Encryption is generally illegal in amateur radio (aka ham radio). -- Eldon
Re: Please stop the Andrew Suffield spam
On Aug 13 0:02+0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote: > > For how long do we have to continue to wade through this flood of > > emails regarding the terrible state of heart of Andrew Suffield? > > Until people stop making accusations. I didn't see any accusations in that email. I'm guessing that the reason there aren't more people telling you they disagree is because you have convinced them (or nearly) to join the cause. Anyone who isn't ignoring you right now is probably really frustrated with you, and strongly considering the killfile option. Maybe you should try to resolve this individually with those you have taken offense to. Continuing to reply to every message in the thread isn't going to make people support you (I suspect that it will do exactly the opposite, and very effectively). > > What > > is the ultimate purpose of this discussion? > > I think they made their purpose quite clear. I seem to recall that you started this discussion. I'll agree that the pledge to killfile you doesn't seem like the best solution, but the thread has hurt you more than helped. Nobody has done anything outside their rigts, and the arguing is wearing me out. -- Eldon Koyle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:03 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 5:24:47 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes: > > In the interest of full disclosure, I no longer have any affiliation > > with DAM. > > > > Felix> With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has > > Felix> a long way to go in implementing basic precepts of > > Felix> justice. For example, it would be good to hold hearings in > > Felix> which the accused can make a statement before any action is > > Felix> taken. > > > > I think phrasing this in terms of justice and rights for keeping > > governments accountable is likely to get a knee-jerk reaction from a > > number of people who do not want to think of things that. > > It's fairly clear to a number of us that maintaining standards of a > > private community is a very different problem than maintaining justice > > for people who have the power to deny life and liberty. > > > > I do think there are standards of fairness and desirable conduct in > > managing a community, but I don't think going back to the Magna Carta or > > other documents of human rights is very productive in moving the > > discussion forward. > > > > However, I do find there are areas where I agree with you. > > I'm going to focus on DAM in this message rather than listmaster or the > > community team. > > I think the calculus for each group works out differently. > > As an example, because the community team cannot (for the most part) > > take formal action, I think it is desirable to avoid too much process > > for them. > > > > While it is true that Debian is not a government and has no power to deprive > someone of life or liberty, it's also not just a social club from which > expulsion has no real consequences. For some people, their professional work > is connected to Debian and being expelled from Debian effectively causes them > to have to get a new job. Many Debian Developers have a lot of personal > identity wrapped up in Debian (myself included). Being expelled from Debian > would also be an emotional blow. > I believe that the Debian community values fairness. I also believe that the community encourages idealism -- it was founded around free-software ideals, after all. I think this contributes to some of the arguments we see: people here want the perfect solution. I think one of the things we are arguing about here is fairness. Humans believe they are acting fairly most of the time; however, there is plenty of historical and current evidence to the contrary. I think this is the reason for pointing to justice system procesess: It is the area where there has been the most effort expended toward making the process fair (and it's still far from perfect). I submit that it is impossible for people to be perfectly fair, and any process with serious implications should formally recognize that. I found a draft from 2019 that I never sent to this list that mostly boils down to this: it is really easy to misunderstand someone and make a bad judgement; especially with all of the cultural differences in our community. As a hopefully innocuous example: there are cultures where commenting on someone's weight is considered extremely rude and mean, while in other cultures it is considered a fact and normal to talk about or even call a person fat. Would calling someone a fatzo immediately warrant a formal warning? I am not on -private, so I'm not entirely sure on the details of what we are arguing about. The same thing happened with Daniel Pocock -- I never really understood exactly what happened to cause him to feel the way he did, just vague insinuations of misconduct from leadership. I feel like before whatever wrong he perceived, he was a relatively normal DD (at least in public), but I agree that his behavior was completely unacceptable. I can say from the interactions on the list that he did not feel heard, which seems all too common. I also would like to point out that the project has some non-obvious forces that could be contributing to the list culture. Having every interaction with Debian lists permanently committed to the public record is extremely intimidating, which may be a source of selection bias for new members (and also a major hurdle to participation, beyond the strong personalities who frequent these lists). I think it also encourages posts only from people who feel _very_ strongly about what they are posting about, which isn't the most conducive to constructive discussion. -- Eldon Koyle
