diversity-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FYI
Date Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:44:56 GMT
To be more specific here, comparing prisoners to people who got banned
from a conference is preposterous. Prisoners by definition have
limited personal freedoms far in excess of someone being bullied on
Twitter. Please have some perspective.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 10:15, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 17:29 Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>>
>> Patricia,
>> I think our opinions differs because of our internalized starting point;
>> Yours (I think) is that repulsive behavior has occurred and that the only
>> way to prove that is that several such cases shows a pattern, where each
>> individual one is a "one says, the other says...". My starting point is
>> that I see a path where there is no additional accusers and the accused
>> hasn't done anything, but that the "victim" seeks "trial by media", and it
>> will be another "one says, the other says" with a wider public going "no
>> smoke without fire".
>>
>> And as these matters are generally framed in a narrower definition than Law
>> in general, and that being at the receiving end of a twitter storm can do
>> as much (or more) harm as a prison sentence,
>
>
> What the fuck, dude. Not cool.
>
>
>> I think it is important that a
>> signal of "false accusations" are not acceptable and will be dealt with as
>> harassment.
>>
>> The "is standing alone" argument is mostly a play on emotions, since there
>> are plenty of people that rush in to support a victim (real or fabricated),
>> but the accused perpetrator (real or not) will have no such support,
>> because no one dares to stand up for such, in the quite likely case it is
>> real. So, it is in fact the accused that is standing alone, unlike the
>> murderer who at least gets a defense lawyer regardless of being accused or
>> outright admitting guilt.
>>
>> And then add the vagueness of language regarding "offense" that has risen
>> lately, and we are in the domain of becoming judge, jury and executioner,
>> for lawful behavior. For unlawful accusations, it is primarily a matter of
>> guiding that to the authorities.
>>
>>
>> // Niclas
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:24 AM Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> > As a reminder, the original proposal that troubles me was:
>> >
>> > > I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to
>> > > me that the point of "public accusations" should constitute
>> > > harassment in and of itself. Do we make that explicit?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/10/2019 9:18 AM, Andrew Musselman wrote:
>> > > I agree, having a quiet period can allow that pattern to continue longer.
>> > >
>> > > But I'm not sure the suggestion is that anyone can't discuss what
>> > happened,
>> > > just that a full-on open-letter or Twitter thread in the moment could be
>> > > more destructive. Discussing not in public, to gauge reactions and
>> > > opinions, would be constructive in my view.
>> > >
>> > > I'm not sure it's being proposed that after an alleged incident has been
>> > > inspected that there's a gag order for all time. I believe this community
>> > > can find a way to support itself, and if there are grievances that are
>> > not
>> > > being resolved I would expect that discussion in public would be a
>> > natural
>> > > next step.
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 8:34 AM Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> The problem with even a finite duration quiet period is that it may
cut
>> > >> off the opportunity for other people to come forward and say things
like
>> > >> "X did the same thing to me yesterday and also passed it off as joke
>> > >> when I complained." or "X said I must have misheard.", or "I overheard
X
>> > >> talking to Y, and X really did say Z". It risks forcing each accuser
to
>> > >> stand alone, with no opportunity to find witnesses, or to find out
about
>> > >> other incidents that would show a pattern and practice. After a
>> > >> conference ends may be too late to find witnesses to an interaction.
>> > >>
>> > >> Handling a complaint fairly would mean dismissing it if there is a
>> > >> dispute about facts and no supporting evidence, just two equally
>> > >> believable people giving different accounts of the same interaction.
>> > >>
>> > >> However, as I understand the proposal it is to make going public with
an
>> > >> accusation at any time, not just during a limited duration quiet period
>> > >> and regardless of whether it is true, an automatic CoC violation. If
the
>> > >> accusation is both public and false, the person making it faces serious
>> > >> real-world consequences, including a defamation lawsuit and being
>> > >> publicly shown to be a liar.
>> > >>
>> > >> On 11/10/2019 7:16 AM, Andrew Musselman wrote:
>> > >>> The tough part about taking conflict directly to a public sphere
is it
>> > >>> doesn’t give people a chance to make amends quickly before escalation.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> An internal, confidential grace period can give someone a chance
to
>> > >> realize
>> > >>> their alleged behavior affected and/or harmed someone else, whether
it
>> > >> was
>> > >>> intentional or not.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I would expect any complaint to be accepted and taken seriously
and
>> > >> handled
>> > >>> fairly. If we already have a problem with complaints being ignored
or
>> > >>> mishandled then we should deal with it in a concrete way now, likewise
>> > if
>> > >>> it becomes a problem.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Best
>> > >>> Andrew
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 01:28 Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> On 11/10/2019 1:02 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> > >>>>> Patricia,
>> > >>>>> I think Ross said it well.
>> > >>>>> Just because I saw someone commit murder, doesn't give
me the right
>> > to
>> > >>>> beat
>> > >>>>> (or hang, or incite others to do) the perpetrator and fair
trial is
>> > >>>> still a
>> > >>>>> necessity in our civilized society. Lynching is (I hoped)
a thing of
>> > >> the
>> > >>>>> past. I am not willing to give up the basic pillars of
our society,
>> > >> just
>> > >>>>> because someone was offended, or even hurt. Sorry, but
to me, the
>> > >>>> principle
>> > >>>>> of "rather let a murderer go free, than risk convict an
innocent" is
>> > >>>> still
>> > >>>>> a strong one. But lately, it seems to no longer be the
case.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Witnessing a murder does not give you the right to beat, lynch,
etc.
>> > On
>> > >>>> the other hand, you can say publicly "I saw X murder Y", and
the
>> > police
>> > >>>> will not switch from investigating X to penalizing you just
because
>> > you
>> > >>>> said that. Of course, X has a strong case for defamation damages
if
>> > you
>> > >>>> say it falsely.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> If I understand what you are saying, and please post a correction
if I
>> > >>>> got this wrong, if the victim of an ASF code of conduct violation
>> > >>>> described the violation publicly you would want the ASF to
switch from
>> > >>>> investigating the original violation to penalizing the victim
for
>> > >>>> talking about it, regardless of the truth of the victim's remarks.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> With all due respect
>> > >>>>> Niclas
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 2:48 PM Ross Gardler
>> > >>>>> <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> IN THIS MAIL I AM ATTEMPTING TO DIG DEEPER THAN THE
SURFACE. I AM
>> > NOT
>> > >>>>>> ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ANY JUDGEMENT ON ANY SPECIFIC OPINION
OR
>> > >> SITUATION. I
>> > >>>>>> BEG THAT PEOPLE DON'T TRY TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES.
IF SOMETHING
>> > >> SEEMS
>> > >>>>>> "OFF" IN SOME WAY PLEASE ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Exactly my position.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Historically rules of confidentiality have also protected
the
>> > innocent
>> > >>>>>> from false accusations and trial by media.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> It's very hard to find the right balance. How might
the ASF best
>> > >> handle
>> > >>>> a
>> > >>>>>> situation like this?
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Ross
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> ________________________________
>> > >>>>>> From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
>> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
>> > >>>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <dev@diversity.apache.org>
>> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: FYI
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Could you clarify who would be prohibited from public
statements by
>> > >>>> this?
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Historically, rules requiring confidentiality have
been used to
>> > >> restrict
>> > >>>>>> victims of harassment from talking publicly about incidents.
That
>> > has
>> > >>>>>> let harassment and assault continue by preventing discovery
of a
>> > >> pattern
>> > >>>>>> of behavior with multiple victims.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> On 11/9/2019 4:55 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> I don't know the details on the circumstances here,
but it seems to
>> > >> me
>> > >>>>>> that
>> > >>>>>>> the point of "public accusations" should constitute
harassment in
>> > and
>> > >>>> of
>> > >>>>>>> itself. Do we make that explicit?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> // Niclas
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:19 AM Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> This is just Uncle Bob being reactionary. What
else is new?
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 14:28 Kevin A. McGrail
<
>> > kmcgrail@apache.org>
>> > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> Yeah just bringing it for others to loop
in.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 15:26 Sally Khudairi
<sk@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Quite a bit of activity about this
on Twitter yesterday...
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> - - -
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Vice President Marketing & Publicity
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Vice President Sponsor Relations
>> > >>>>>>>>>> The Apache Software Foundation
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tel +1 617 921 8656 | sk@apache.org
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 15:18, Kevin
A. McGrail wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>
>> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cleancoder.com%2Funcle-bob%2F2019%2F11%2F08%2FOpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&amp;sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&amp;reserved=0
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin A. McGrail
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin
Project
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>
>> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fkmcgrail&amp;data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&amp;sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>> > >>>>>> - 703.798.0171
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> --
>> > >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>



-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
View raw message