Re: [gentoo-project] Why should you *not* vote on existing Council members

[desultory]

On 06/24/19 06:55, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Speaking only for my personal opinion:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:12 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> Just so everyone is clear on this, exactly how is it bad to explain how
>> someone appears to demonstrate a lack of empathy?
>
> It isn't.  It is bad to state that they demonstrate a lack of empathy
> on a public Gentoo forum.
>
> This is a negative statement about an individual - that simply is
> off-topic for all public Gentoo forums.  If anybody has a concern that
> somebody lacks empathy they should discuss it with the individual, or
> bring it up with Comrel and resolve it in private.
>
So, even ignoring the rather more expansive take some have on the
statement in social contract regarding bugs being public [GSC:hide], by
your espoused reasoning even filing a bug requesting ComRel intervention
due to demonstrable violation of the CoC would not be a suitable venue
for arguably negative comments regarding an individual, as (per ComRel
[ComRel]) there is no indication that such bugs would necessarily be
private. Think about that for a moment: according to your logic it is an
actionable violation of community standards to formally request action
regarding actionable violations of community standards. Even when the
reasoning is laid out and it is expressly meant to me informational not
offensive.

By decreeing all arguably negative comments to be verboten, you have
essentially instituted a policy of radicalization. If this seems hard to
grasp, follow the logic for a moment. The mere act of telling a
developer that they are acting badly is, by your logic, forbidden as it
would be a statement which would arguably negatively reflect on an
individual. Thus marginally bad actors either do not get public feedback
on their behavior and become increasingly convinced that they are acting
in a wholly acceptable manner and their behavior gets reinforced, or
they do get public feedback and promptly file a complaint because
someone dared to tell them that they were not perfect and that is wrong
and must be quashed (though they would need to file the request in
private, obviously). Over time, people increasingly attempt to avoid the
bad actors, and when they are unavoidable become ever more demoralized
by their behavior which they still cannot comment on because negative
comments about people are forbidden, and citing a list of instances of
misbehavior, does at some point end up reducing to an argument against a
person and their behavior, and it thus forbidden. So you have people
being generally rude or abrasive, even without expressly meaning to be,
but they never get communal feedback since that has been forbidden. And
you have other people who increasingly simply try to avoid them because
they have simply had enough of whatever the problem is. What you end up
with is the people who are forbidden to respond either seeking alternate
ways in which to respond, thus forming insular cliques which
increasingly echo "bad person is bad", or open violation of your
interpretation of the CoC, or indeed of any interpretation of the CoC as
social norms in the project break down and the project essentially dies
under the weight of overly enforced politesse.

This seems suboptimal.

>> Especially after the
>> individual who posted the message in question apologized for any offense
>> caused before proctors stepped in?
>
> If I thought that offense was intended I (again, speaking personally)
> might have probably recommended a temporary ban, and not a warning
> (well, maybe after the election period so as not to interfere).  I
> never thought that offense was intended, and even said as much on the
> list before the apology was even issued, or even before I became aware
> that a proctors bug had been opened.
>
> However, I'll note the apology didn't really apologize for making a
> personal statement about an individual in the first place, and only
> seemed to clarify its meaning.  Again, the concern isn't that the
> statement was worded poorly (though it was), but that the whole issue
> with language would have been avoided entirely if we had avoided
> making personal statements about individuals in the first place.  This
> wasn't a discussion about whether a particular individual was
> qualified to be in a particular role.
>
This standard, as noted above, is at best silly in practice and in theory.

>> Does the proctors project acknowledge that posting such a warning very
>> much appears to just be flagging something to complain to comrel about
>> later, and that by excluding the apology this appears to be all the more
>> biased?
>
> I'm not sure what comrel has to do with this.  I have no personal
> insight into their thinking but I'm skeptical that they would be
> concerned with one CoC warning unless it were a part of a larger
> pattern of behavior.
>
Search engines are a things which exist. Bookmarks as well. Citing prior
incidents is common practice when filing virtually any manner of
grievance. By your espoused logic any arguably negative comment about
anyone constitutes a violation, making a pattern of behavior trivial to
establish as inoffensive arguably negative comments are not exactly hard
to come by when one is set on taking feedback as actionably negative.

> Nor do I see bias.  Surely saying somebody demonstrates lack of
> empathy is a negative statement about an individual person.  That
> makes the statement a CoC violation.
>
Aye, and ducks weigh as much as ducks and are therefore witches.

Do pray tell why, by your logic comments regarding negative aspects of
individuals are forbidden, but analogous comments regarding entire teams
are not.
> A complaint was made to proctors, and the proctors evaluated the
> statement and determined it was a violation.  Dismissing a complaint
> without taking action when it pertained to a Council member would
> probably have been the worse outcome, IMO.
>
Quite the interesting stance there as well: any complaint at all against
a member of the council should, by your logic, merit a public warning to
the council member, no exceptions.

> I'll agree that this was a somewhat borderline situation, and I was
> personally concerned that a warning would itself lack empathy which
> would of course be ironic.  However, we were asked for a decision and
> made one, and in my proposed wording I did try to depersonalize and
> contextualize the nature of Proctors actions.
>
It was indeed ironic. It was also badly supported by logic. And a rather
dramatic shifting of established norms.

> The goal here is to try to get everybody to focus on the issues and
> policies and less on criticizing people personally on public mailing
> lists.  That is all.
>
> Again, speaking personally for myself only...
>

[GSC:hide]
https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html#we-will-not-hide-problems
[ComRel] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel