1 |
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other |
6 |
>>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then |
7 |
>>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists? |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> And this is done - in private. Nobody is alleging misconduct in |
14 |
> public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public. Those |
15 |
> being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity |
16 |
> to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to |
17 |
> improve. Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why |
18 |
> they were booted. With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from |
19 |
> making false statements like this. With our current policies we can't |
20 |
> really contradict them specifically either. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
You're mincing words: people are publicly alleging (we're talking |
24 |
about it right now) private misconduct. Actions are now being proposed |
25 |
(and have already begun to be acted out) based on this private |
26 |
behavior. It is reasonable that if you expect anyone to believe you, |
27 |
that you should prove the misconduct actually took place. |
28 |
|
29 |
> I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent |
30 |
> situation. It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to |
31 |
> decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not. |
32 |
> In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public |
33 |
> statement by the project as to what was being done and why. It |
34 |
> probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has |
35 |
> the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while |
36 |
> also defeating false statements. If somebody alleges that they're |
37 |
> innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what |
38 |
> actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for |
39 |
> transparency and it would diminish their credibility. On the other |
40 |
> hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would |
41 |
> be no publicity around the event. I'd think it would also help to |
42 |
> defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be |
43 |
> presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they |
44 |
> accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue |
45 |
> in a court. |
46 |
> |
47 |
|
48 |
What really makes this hard to argue in court is the fact that in all |
49 |
but one circuit libel, slander, and by extension defamation are all |
50 |
impossible to claim if the statements were truthful. The first circuit |
51 |
decision is very unpopular, and it seems like people do not expect it |
52 |
to stand further testing as it was due to exceptional circumstances. |
53 |
|
54 |
But really, the bigger issue is that lawyers are not magic sages that |
55 |
can solve all of your problems. Most statements by lawyers are |
56 |
opinions about how a justice might decide, and they do not know for |
57 |
sure. In fact, much of practicing law is avoiding confrontation at all |
58 |
cost, and many issues in the popular eye are almost entirely legal |
59 |
speculation that has never seen a courtroom! |
60 |
|
61 |
Consequently, the justification for the actions as has been given is |
62 |
pathetic: if you actually had people's best interest in mind you would |
63 |
be forthcoming with the evidence, because you truly believed the |
64 |
problem is worth solving and believed you should convince other people |
65 |
that it is worth solving. If you made someone's private actions public |
66 |
(with consent of one party involved) it would be very hard to prove |
67 |
that anything was done out of malice, which would be necessary, in the |
68 |
US, to prove defamation. |
69 |
|
70 |
Do not give up your freedom to act unless you are forced to. |
71 |
|
72 |
The one legitimate complaint I could see being entertained is similar |
73 |
to the ones that are now cropping up against universities and their |
74 |
Title IX compliance courts: you have no legal training and are not |
75 |
authorized to punish anyone, so the only thing you should do once you |
76 |
are notified of misconduct is contact the police. In this sense the |
77 |
policies you have now are "illegal" (in the vague, nebulous way that |
78 |
your behavior makes it more likely for another party to have |
79 |
standing). |
80 |
|
81 |
> Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to |
82 |
> keep this stuff private. Somebody might not be a good fit for a big |
83 |
> community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas |
84 |
> of their life where they can be successful. Publicity over a bad |
85 |
> event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate |
86 |
> needs of our community. And there always is the chance that an error |
87 |
> is being made in kicking them out. Sure, that isn't a good thing, and |
88 |
> I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the |
89 |
> harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not |
90 |
> a great one. Why make that harm greater by publicizing things when |
91 |
> this is not essential to accomplish our goals? The goal isn't to ruin |
92 |
> somebody's life - it is to allow other contributors to participate in |
93 |
> the community in reasonable peace. |
94 |
> |
95 |
|
96 |
So you are saying I am not capable of deciding for myself, and you are |
97 |
one of the only ones qualified to decide for me? |
98 |
|
99 |
I believe in forgiveness, but actions are not without consequences. |
100 |
The point where private evidence is being used as justification for |
101 |
public action is when the line has been crossed. |
102 |
|
103 |
Respectfully, |
104 |
R0b0t1 |