1 |
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:33 AM, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
3 |
>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> Fred is a community member. Fred consistently harasses and trolls new |
6 |
>>> contributors in private. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> Sure, it's a problem. But not a problem which can be solved by |
9 |
>> closing the mailing list, in no step of the issue. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> First of all, this happens in private, so you cannot prevent it |
12 |
>> by closing a mailing list. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Certainly. Closing lists won't stop the private abuse, nor is it intended to. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> What it would stop is this particular thread talking endlessly about it. |
17 |
> |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>>> No mention is made of why Fred as booted out, because everything |
20 |
>>> happened in private. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> That's the mistake which is made in this example. Be open in the |
23 |
>> decisions. If you cannot be open in order to protect other people's |
24 |
>> privacy, be open at least by saying exactly this. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> In the example I can think of this was done, and yet people still |
27 |
> endlessly argued about it, because simply stating that you can't be |
28 |
> open about something won't satisfy people who want there to be |
29 |
> openness. |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
As I have tried to explain, the reasons you have given are not |
33 |
consistent and even if they were there is no reason to believe they |
34 |
are based on a sound interpretation of the law. You simply ignored |
35 |
those comments, which tells everyone else you do not care whether you |
36 |
are making valid decisions. That is why these discussions have |
37 |
continued. |
38 |
|
39 |
>> Closing a mailing list |
40 |
>> will not close such a debate; it will then just happen elsewhere. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> And that is the goal. |
43 |
> |
44 |
>> Anyway, such a debate does not belong to dev-ml. The correct solution |
45 |
>> is to continue to point people to have this debate on the appropriate place, |
46 |
>> not on the mainly technically oriented dev-ml. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Could you take this debate to the appropriate place then? |
49 |
> |
50 |
> |
51 |
>> Making the posters silent |
52 |
>> by blacklisting even more is contra-productive and will give the |
53 |
>> impression that they are actually right. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> If the goal is to make them silent on the closed list it is completely |
56 |
> productive. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Nothing can prevent people from getting the impression that there is |
59 |
> some kind of cover-up. Certainly the last time this sort of thing |
60 |
> happened having hundreds of emails posted on the topic on the lists |
61 |
> didn't do anything to convince the few posters that the right thing |
62 |
> was done. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Now, I do like something that Debian did in this situation which was |
65 |
> to give the person who was booted the option to have the reasoning |
66 |
> disclosed or not. If they refuse and people question why they were |
67 |
> booted, you can simply state that all people who are booted are given |
68 |
> the option to have the reasons disclosed, and the person leaving made |
69 |
> the choice not to have this done. IMO something like this would tend |
70 |
> to reduce the legal liabilities. |
71 |
> |
72 |
>> |
73 |
>>> Ultimately the leaders just want Fred gone so that new contributors |
74 |
>>> aren't getting driven away. They can't explain that because then they |
75 |
>>> create potential civil liability for the project. |
76 |
>> |
77 |
>> Why not? Is it against a law to exclude somebody who is hurting a |
78 |
>> project? |
79 |
> |
80 |
> Not at all. Booting somebody from an organization like Gentoo creates |
81 |
> no liability, unless it was based on discrimination/etc. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> The liability comes from saying negative things about somebody. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> Kicking out Fred is fine. Stating publicly that Fred was kicked out |
86 |
> for sexual harassment would allow Fred to sue, and then you have to |
87 |
> pay to prove that he was sexually harassing somebody. |
88 |
> |
89 |
|
90 |
Fred can sue even if you've done nothing. You would still be well |
91 |
advised to hire representation in that case to prevent Fred from |
92 |
winning by default. Agitating people by withholding comments on |
93 |
problematic behavior doesn't remove that possibility. |
94 |
|
95 |
As long as the statements were true only a token effort (if even that) |
96 |
needs to be made to dismiss the suit. In very rare cases, mostly where |
97 |
something close to malicious intent behind the release of the |
98 |
information can be shown, damages will be awarded. But seeing as there |
99 |
is a valid reason (effective project governance) for releasing that |
100 |
information I see no way that would be upheld. |
101 |
|
102 |
>> |
103 |
>>> The problem is that |
104 |
>>> the debate goes on for over a year despite intervening elections and |
105 |
>>> now this becomes the issue that is driving new contributors away. |
106 |
>>> What solution would you propose for this problem? |
107 |
>> |
108 |
>> How would closing the mailing list solve the problem? It will give |
109 |
>> the impression that you want to close the debate by taking away the |
110 |
>> medium where people can argue. And the impression is correct, because |
111 |
>> this actually *is* the intention if you are honest. |
112 |
> |
113 |
> Certainly this is the intention, at least for my part. There is no |
114 |
> benefit in arguing about this for more than a year, especially if |
115 |
> those who made the decisions get re-elected to their posts. |
116 |
> |
117 |
>> Of course, it will not close said debate. The debate will just happen |
118 |
>> on another channel. (Which in this example might be appropriate, but |
119 |
>> pointing to the proper channel is what should have happened and not |
120 |
>> closing a mailing list and thus excluding random people from posting |
121 |
>> things about clompletely different topics which *are* on-topic on dev-ml). |
122 |
> |
123 |
> People have repeatedly pointed out the correct places for such |
124 |
> debates, though honestly if it were my call I'd not allow this debate |
125 |
> to go on further anywhere that Gentoo operates. |
126 |
> |
127 |
> People post this stuff on the -dev list for the same reason that |
128 |
> protesters block public streets. They want to make it hard to ignore |
129 |
> them. |
130 |
> |
131 |
>> |
132 |
>>> Sure, but we can at least force the negative advertising of Gentoo to |
133 |
>>> go elsewhere, rather than basically paying to run a negative PR |
134 |
>>> campaign against ourselves. |
135 |
>> |
136 |
>> Closing dev-ml will not help here. If people have a strong |
137 |
>> disagreement with a decision, this will happen on gentoo channels. |
138 |
>> If you want to prevent it technically, you have to close all channels. |
139 |
> |
140 |
> Agree. But, I don't make the decisions. If it were up to me this |
141 |
> topic would be closed everywhere. |
142 |
> |
143 |
>> BTW, I do not think that contributors are that blue-eyed that they |
144 |
>> will stop contributing only because one person does not know how to |
145 |
>> behave. |
146 |
> |
147 |
> The problem comes when the person is booted out and a half dozen |
148 |
> people keep arguing that they were innocent, that Gentoo is run by a |
149 |
> cabal in an ivory tower, and that decisions like this should be made |
150 |
> more openly. IMO this is the sort of thing that is more likely to |
151 |
> drive contributors away, because it has a veneer of legitimacy. The |
152 |
> arguments in favor of that position are simple, and the arguments |
153 |
> against it are nuanced and often rely on access to non-public |
154 |
> information. |
155 |
> |
156 |
|
157 |
It has a veneer of legitimacy? Perhaps the complaints are legitimate? |
158 |
|
159 |
Imagine the outcry if a court made decisions in private and did not |
160 |
release names of the accusers and the accused. |
161 |
|
162 |
> You can ignore their posts but then people assume they're right. So |
163 |
> either we get endless argument (more than a year), or we need to |
164 |
> exercise prior restraint. Neither is desirable, but I've yet to see |
165 |
> another option presented. |
166 |
> |
167 |
|
168 |
Don't present a false dichotomy - you could begin releasing |
169 |
information. Every argument as to whether or not that is a valid |
170 |
decision has been ignored. |
171 |
|
172 |
Cheers, |
173 |
R0b0t1 |