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

[desultory]

On 06/26/19 08:36, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:24 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/24/19 06:55, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Speaking only for my personal opinion:
>>>
>> 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.
>
> There is also no indication that such bugs would be public.  IMO the
> ComRel policy should define expectations of privacy because this has
> been a problem in the past with Council appeals, which I believe I
> have commented on the lists about previously.
>
So no ComRel needs to clean house in order to avoid running afoul of a
new (unilaterally conceived) policy that runs distinctly counter to
existing practice.

> In any case, Comrel can handle its own bugs, and unless somebody says
> otherwise I'd probably consider them out of scope for proctors.
>
The proctors project wiki page [proctors] explicitly states that it
considers bugzilla to be under its direct purview; not just some bugs,
all bugs. Which would make this yet another new policy spawned for no
evident reason other than having not thought through the implications of
an existing policy, and not bothering to consult with affected parties,
again.

>> By decreeing all arguably negative comments to be verboten, you have
>> essentially instituted a policy of radicalization.
>
> Your whole post is basically a negative comment about how the CoC is
> being enforced, and does not contain personal attacks.  We can talk
> about issues.  We can talk about policies/processes.  Just don't talk
> about individual people.
>
Yes, it is, because the specific instance in question was badly handled
and the newly espoused (and unilateral) policy is perverse, draconian,
and generally ill-conceived.

>> 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.
>
> We only enforce the CoC on public lists.  If you are having this
> discussion in private it would not be within the scope of proctors.
> If somebody feels they're being harassed in private they can always go
> to Comrel, but if you try to work constructively with an individual
> and they are ignoring you it is better to just go to Comrel if the
> matter is serious (assuming this is an interpersonal issue - if it is
> a technical/quality issue QA would be more appropriate).
>
Again, contrary to how the proctors wiki page defines the scope of the
project.

> And talking about ISSUES is again fine.  If you notice a bug in an
> eclass/ebuild that is causing problems then open a bug and talk about
> it.  You can talk about it on the lists if appropriate.  QA can
> connect the dots if there are trends involving individuals, or you can
> privately suggest that they look for dots.
>
> This isn't about suppressing issues.  This is about HOW we deal with them.
>
If if were my impression that proctors was directly attempting to quash
discussion of bugs in general, I would already have sent mail to all
current council members and the project mailing list requesting an
immediate dissolution of the proctors project as it was acting directly
counter to productive work and against any semblance of mandate it might
have. As it is, the project as a whole has not reached that threshold.

> While it isn't Gentoo's policy I'd suggest taking a look at the FSF's
> CoC.  It does a decent job (IMO) of explaining why personal attacks
> are counterproductive even if you think they should be allowed, which
> they are not (at least not unless Council says otherwise).
>
The most obvious problem with that is what was warned about was not a
personal attack. There is a difference between "$person lack empathy"
and "$person is an inhuman monster" which seems to have been lost in
this action by proctors.

>>> 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.
>
> Sure, and if somebody says 3 mildly-negative things about somebody
> over their 20 year dev career, I suspect that Comrel will probably
> weigh the passing of time.
>
Interesting how you draw a distinction between mildly negative comments
and personal attack s here, but not in the "warning" itself, despite
acknowledging in that warning that it was not evidently meant to be
offensive.

> I mean, it isn't like they're kicking people out left and right...
>
This is yet another occurrence of a fallacy which is distressingly
common in various media: since one does not think that a system is being
overly abused now, why should anyone be at all concerned about abuses in
the system? Especially when that system is, in the instance in question,
being abused.

> The fact that search engines and archives exist is part of why we
> don't attack people personally in the first place.  I mean, who wants
> to work on a project which requires operating with your real name
> where people non-professionally have at each other regularly?  To err
> is human, and interpersonal conflict will always happen.  Professional
> conduct is about handling these situations in a more effective manner
> that reflects the realities that we all mess up from time to time.  It
> isn't about ignoring issues, it is about recognizing that hitting
> people with a bat doesn't necessarily inspire them to fix issues
> either (again, read the FSF CoC for more elegant argument).
>
And yet here we are back to having no distinction between mildly
negative comments and personal attacks.

>> Do pray tell why, by your logic comments regarding negative aspects of
>> individuals are forbidden, but analogous comments regarding entire teams
>> are not.
>
> It isn't about the team either.  It is about the policies/processes/outcomes.
>
So smearing groups of people is acceptable, so long as none are
isolated. Pray tell, what of instances where an individual smears
another by associating them with a smeared group?

> For example, we're discussing whether negative personal criticism
> should be allowed on the lists.  That is just a policy decision.
>
Do kindly enlighten me: exactly what would you personally or the
proctors generally consider to be positive personal criticism?

> If people are implementing a bad policy, the issue isn't with the
> people, either individually or as a team.  That doesn't mean we need
> 300 commandments - just feedback.
If people are making bad policy for questionable reasons, either
individually or as a team, there is something amiss with their
perspective, their data, their logic, or their value judgments.
Sometimes reeducation is not worth the cost, especially when there are
ongoing costs incurred and no guarantee that such education would be
effective.

> If people aren't implementing a policy correctly, then the issue is
> with the people, but if the people aren't already being dealt with
> then there is also a problem with the process.
>
It is entirely possible to make policies which are unclear, or
inexplicit on some point, which are then taken, incorrectly, to imply
something which is itself then made policy and enforced. Which is indeed
what I consider to have happened here. Given that proctors process was
implemented questionably regarding the warning, and there was no evident
process at all regarding the newly espoused policy, are you telling me
that the problem is the people involved?

> So, you can talk about outcomes and get those fixed.
>
> Now, keep in mind that we're still a small organization and always
> labor-constrained, so sometimes we're just stuck with the people
> willing to do the work.
>
Sometimes, it is better to leave a job undone than to have it done
improperly.

>>> 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.
>
> You skipped part of my statement, "proctors evaluated the statement
> and determined it was a violation."
>
No, I did not skip that part. I disagree with there having been any
actionable violation of the CoC in the first place, but your espoused
standard is that a comment could be interpreted as being negative in
regards to an individual. Given your espoused standard, merely claiming
the potential for offense is sufficient grounds for, at the least, a
warning.

> We obviously don't issue warnings when we determine there aren't violations.
>
That much has become distinctly questionable in light of recent actions.

> Do you REALLY want us ignoring violations by individuals in senior
> positions when there has been a complaint?
>
Following your espoused standards, I should file a proctors bug over
that, as it arguably violates the code of conduct [CoC], specifically:
"
Unacceptable behaviour
...
* Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting. It is possible to
respectfully challenge someone in a way that empowers without being
judgemental.
* Constantly purveying misinformation despite repeated warnings.
"
Indeed, it even arguably fits both of the other descriptions for
unacceptable behavior, at very least as well as what proctors have
actually issued a warning over. Is that seriously the path being sought
for discourse on the lists? Are rhetorical questions to be banned as well?

As I have already noted, I do not believe that the comments in question
warranted any disciplinary response, certainly not an official public
warning. I do not care whether the person making them is a member of the
council or up for election to the council. A trumped up complaint
drawing an overreaction is not better for having been in response to
someone on the council, it is merely more visible.

>>> 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 ... a rather
>> dramatic shifting of established norms.
>
> Well, of course.  Proctors basically didn't exist for a decade.  ANY
> action we take is a dramatic shifting of established norms.
>
While it is true that there was no proctors project for quite some time,
claiming that any action by any proctor would necessarily be a dramatic
shift in established norms is utterly, blatantly, false. There have been
numerous personal attacks on the lists in the time since the proctors
project was started (restarted, if you prefer), none received a warning
for months, then a critique of how someone handles one of their roles
was treated as an actionable violation. By your logic, there is
absolutely no reason to believe that proctors will, or will not, do
literally anything at literally any time, because it has "only" been
embodied for a year, and is making radical changes to its policies for
reasons which have yet to be articulated. Yes, you have stated that you
seek to enforce "professional conduct", but the reason for the rather
dramatic policy shift has gone without mention.

Whether the new policy even provides for "professional conduct" is an
other question entirely, though as one might infer I very much doubt
that it does, will, or indeed can.

> Proctors has been existence for basically a full year.  Aside with
> dealing with some spam/etc this is really the only significant action
> it has taken in one year, and it was a warning.
>
It has issued a warning which it should not have, and not issued dozens
which were distinctly more warranted, I would consider that to be a
rather unimpressive track record.

> I don't think it is realistic to have a Code of Conduct that we
> actually intend to be followed and not expect to have at least a
> warning issued once a year.
>
I think that it is distinctly unrealistic to treat a personal critique
as an actionable personal attack when personal attacks are regularly
ignored by proctors. I think it is distinctly unrealistic to claim that
the CoC is being followed when it is demonstrably not.

>> [ComRel] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel
>

[proctors] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proctors
[CoC] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct