1 |
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other |
5 |
>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then |
6 |
>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists? |
7 |
>> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it. |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
And this is done - in private. Nobody is alleging misconduct in |
13 |
public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public. Those |
14 |
being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity |
15 |
to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to |
16 |
improve. Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why |
17 |
they were booted. With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from |
18 |
making false statements like this. With our current policies we can't |
19 |
really contradict them specifically either. |
20 |
|
21 |
I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent |
22 |
situation. It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to |
23 |
decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not. |
24 |
In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public |
25 |
statement by the project as to what was being done and why. It |
26 |
probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has |
27 |
the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while |
28 |
also defeating false statements. If somebody alleges that they're |
29 |
innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what |
30 |
actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for |
31 |
transparency and it would diminish their credibility. On the other |
32 |
hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would |
33 |
be no publicity around the event. I'd think it would also help to |
34 |
defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be |
35 |
presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they |
36 |
accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue |
37 |
in a court. |
38 |
|
39 |
Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to |
40 |
keep this stuff private. Somebody might not be a good fit for a big |
41 |
community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas |
42 |
of their life where they can be successful. Publicity over a bad |
43 |
event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate |
44 |
needs of our community. And there always is the chance that an error |
45 |
is being made in kicking them out. Sure, that isn't a good thing, and |
46 |
I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the |
47 |
harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not |
48 |
a great one. Why make that harm greater by publicizing things when |
49 |
this is not essential to accomplish our goals? The goal isn't to ruin |
50 |
somebody's life - it is to allow other contributors to participate in |
51 |
the community in reasonable peace. |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Rich |