Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Proposal for Council: Prohibit Harassment & Discrimination via the CoC
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:42:49
Message-Id: 4432783.IjYAZnc5Jk@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Proposal for Council: Prohibit Harassment & Discrimination via the CoC by "Robin H. Johnson"
1 On Sunday 26 April 2015 22:30:52 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2 > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 07:39:37AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o>
4 wrote:
5 > > > Gentoo should ALSO care if it comes to light that individuals with past
6 > > > history of incidents are participating in the community. Eg: [1a][1b]
7 > > > [1a]
8 > > > http://www.eventbrite.com/e/ignite-bridgetown-part-of-portland-startup-> > > week-tickets-15491321961 [1b]
9 > > > http://crystalbeasley.com/2015/02/04/I-stand-against-kveton/
10 > > > How it should deal with any such individuals I don't have a good answer
11 > > > to, but should be considered in CoC changes.
12 >
13 > As noted here already: I don't have good answers, just more questions
14 >
15 > :-(.
16
17 Mmmh. Somehow I get the feeling that this is an example of the twitter outrage
18 engine running at full throttle.
19
20 So there's *allegations* of misconduct, and thus someone is not allowed to go
21 there. Those that _feel_ uncomfortable get to dictate the terms. (Independent
22 of actual guilt, but no one has time for the legal system anymore)
23
24 Let me try a reducito ad absurdum:
25
26 I claim that $gentoo_dev has been harassing me (without proof)
27 Thus this person should not be allowed to go to FOSDEM because I want to go
28 there, and I might *feel* uncomfortable going there.
29
30 I would expect people to demand either proof, or ignore my unsubstantiated
31 whining. I hope Gentoo doesn't turn into a Safe Space full of Trigger Warnings
32 where we can't communicate clearly because someone feels that it discriminates
33 their feelings or something ...
34
35
36 > :
37 > > Looking at your example, how do we find a balance between:
38 > >
39 > > 1. Safety (err on the side of caution) vs justice (innocent until
40 > > proven guilty)?
41 > > 2. Safety (once a criminal, always a criminal) vs redemption (why
42 > > wouldn't we want somebody trying to turn their life around to
43 > > contribute to FOSS) vs punishment (here is our chance to show
44 > > solidarity and throw a few more stones)?
45 >
46 > Further to these, should comrel/recruiters actively research past
47 > behavior? If they don't, how should they react when negative past
48 > behavior comes to light?
49
50 Actively? No. If someone has committed a crime and been handled in the legal
51 system (i.e. fines, prison time, ...) it's definitely not our job to punish
52 them again.
53
54 Do we really need to discuss this ?!
55
56 >
57 > In that example, turn down the speaker or have the effects of having
58 > them as a speaker? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
59 >
60 > > The posts you cited concern somebody who was actually exonerated of
61 > > the crime in a court of law.
62 >
63 > For those that weren't up on the further proceedings of it, see "Grand
64 > Jury declines to indict" [1].
65
66 In other words, he had enough damage from people harassing him, had to step
67 down from his job, while most everyone involved forgot basic things like
68 "innocent until proven guilty" ... maybe we should not aim to emulate that.