| 1 |
Speaking only for my personal opinion: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:12 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Just so everyone is clear on this, exactly how is it bad to explain how |
| 6 |
> someone appears to demonstrate a lack of empathy? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It isn't. It is bad to state that they demonstrate a lack of empathy |
| 9 |
on a public Gentoo forum. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
This is a negative statement about an individual - that simply is |
| 12 |
off-topic for all public Gentoo forums. If anybody has a concern that |
| 13 |
somebody lacks empathy they should discuss it with the individual, or |
| 14 |
bring it up with Comrel and resolve it in private. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Especially after the |
| 17 |
> individual who posted the message in question apologized for any offense |
| 18 |
> caused before proctors stepped in? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If I thought that offense was intended I (again, speaking personally) |
| 21 |
might have probably recommended a temporary ban, and not a warning |
| 22 |
(well, maybe after the election period so as not to interfere). I |
| 23 |
never thought that offense was intended, and even said as much on the |
| 24 |
list before the apology was even issued, or even before I became aware |
| 25 |
that a proctors bug had been opened. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
However, I'll note the apology didn't really apologize for making a |
| 28 |
personal statement about an individual in the first place, and only |
| 29 |
seemed to clarify its meaning. Again, the concern isn't that the |
| 30 |
statement was worded poorly (though it was), but that the whole issue |
| 31 |
with language would have been avoided entirely if we had avoided |
| 32 |
making personal statements about individuals in the first place. This |
| 33 |
wasn't a discussion about whether a particular individual was |
| 34 |
qualified to be in a particular role. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> Does the proctors project acknowledge that posting such a warning very |
| 37 |
> much appears to just be flagging something to complain to comrel about |
| 38 |
> later, and that by excluding the apology this appears to be all the more |
| 39 |
> biased? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I'm not sure what comrel has to do with this. I have no personal |
| 42 |
insight into their thinking but I'm skeptical that they would be |
| 43 |
concerned with one CoC warning unless it were a part of a larger |
| 44 |
pattern of behavior. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Nor do I see bias. Surely saying somebody demonstrates lack of |
| 47 |
empathy is a negative statement about an individual person. That |
| 48 |
makes the statement a CoC violation. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
A complaint was made to proctors, and the proctors evaluated the |
| 51 |
statement and determined it was a violation. Dismissing a complaint |
| 52 |
without taking action when it pertained to a Council member would |
| 53 |
probably have been the worse outcome, IMO. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
I'll agree that this was a somewhat borderline situation, and I was |
| 56 |
personally concerned that a warning would itself lack empathy which |
| 57 |
would of course be ironic. However, we were asked for a decision and |
| 58 |
made one, and in my proposed wording I did try to depersonalize and |
| 59 |
contextualize the nature of Proctors actions. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
The goal here is to try to get everybody to focus on the issues and |
| 62 |
policies and less on criticizing people personally on public mailing |
| 63 |
lists. That is all. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Again, speaking personally for myself only... |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Rich |
Archives