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