1 |
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 15/01/17 20:02, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> 2. Transparency |
6 |
> >> --------------- |
7 |
> >> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner |
8 |
> >> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies. |
9 |
> >> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media, |
10 |
> >> and contains: |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies, |
13 |
> >> |
14 |
> >> - the description and length of the measure applied. |
15 |
> > I think most of your proposal is reasonable, except for this point. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way. I'm fine |
18 |
> > with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action |
19 |
> > voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged. |
20 |
> > However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be |
21 |
> > turned into public examples for a few reasons: |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > 1. It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their |
24 |
> > ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation. |
25 |
> > 2. It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could affect |
26 |
> > their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find |
27 |
> > employment. |
28 |
> > 3. Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to |
29 |
> > defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc. |
30 |
> > 4. Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to defend |
31 |
> > their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive |
32 |
> > proposition for all involved. |
33 |
> > 5. #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the details |
34 |
> > of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all |
35 |
> > the arguing. Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn't |
36 |
> > actually serve any productive purpose since there are no facts |
37 |
> > involved. |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> > If the concern is abuse then let those who feel they were the victims |
40 |
> > of abuse be the ones to choose whether they make it a public issue. |
41 |
> > And by all means publish anonymous information about the volume of |
42 |
> > actions so that we can collectively judge whether it is happening too |
43 |
> > often/little/etc. |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> I respectfully disagree. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> If a persons actions have escalated to an extent where disciplinary |
48 |
> action becomes necessary, it should have become patently obvious by this |
49 |
> point that something has gone badly wrong, and that the consequences of |
50 |
> this are that you may be publicly named and shamed. Where there may be |
51 |
> some legal angle, I feel there may be cause to anonymise until legal |
52 |
> advice has been sought, but in that event, you may not wish to publish |
53 |
> anything until you know where you stand anyway. In the rare event that |
54 |
> an error occurs, a public apology may be the correct course of action to |
55 |
> rectify any public disclosure that may have previously occurred. This |
56 |
> too, should function as a check-and-balance that you're doing The Right |
57 |
> Thing(tm). |
58 |
> |
59 |
|
60 |
I think you vastly underestimate the number of bans that occur on mediums |
61 |
such as IRC, the forums, or bugzilla. |
62 |
|
63 |
-A |
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
> |
67 |
> If it is deemed immediate and escalated action is necessary as the First |
68 |
> step, I think you're going to be seeking advice anyway, and it should be |
69 |
> apparent that such action is only desirable in very rare and severe |
70 |
> cases. Again, the knowledge that you may have to quickly backtrack and |
71 |
> perform a public apology should function as a check-and-balance. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> Increased transparency and the fear of real consequences to your actions |
74 |
> should be an adequate deterrent to anyone thinking of stirring the pot. |
75 |
> It works elsewhere, why should Gentoo be such a special case?! |
76 |
> |
77 |
> |