Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3781 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:

> On 15/01/17 20:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> 2. Transparency
> >> ---------------
> >> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner
> >> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies.
> >> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media,
> >> and contains:
> >>
> >> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies,
> >>
> >> - the description and length of the measure applied.
> > I think most of your proposal is reasonable, except for this point.
> >
> > I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way.  I'm fine
> > with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action
> > voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged.
> > However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be
> > turned into public examples for a few reasons:
> >
> > 1.  It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their
> > ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation.
> > 2.  It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could affect
> > their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find
> > employment.
> > 3.  Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to
> > defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc.
> > 4.  Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to defend
> > their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive
> > proposition for all involved.
> > 5.  #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the details
> > of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all
> > the arguing.  Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn't
> > actually serve any productive purpose since there are no facts
> > involved.
> >
> > If the concern is abuse then let those who feel they were the victims
> > of abuse be the ones to choose whether they make it a public issue.
> > And by all means publish anonymous information about the volume of
> > actions so that we can collectively judge whether it is happening too
> > often/little/etc.
> >
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> If a persons actions have escalated to an extent where disciplinary
> action becomes necessary, it should have become patently obvious by this
> point that something has gone badly wrong, and that the consequences of
> this are that you may be publicly named and shamed. Where there may be
> some legal angle, I feel there may be cause to anonymise until legal
> advice has been sought, but in that event, you may not wish to publish
> anything until you know where you stand anyway. In the rare event that
> an error occurs, a public apology may be the correct course of action to
> rectify any public disclosure that may have previously occurred. This
> too, should function as a check-and-balance that you're doing The Right
> Thing(tm).
>

I think you vastly underestimate the number of bans that occur on mediums
such as IRC, the forums, or bugzilla.

-A


>
> If it is deemed immediate and escalated action is necessary as the First
> step, I think you're going to be seeking advice anyway, and it should be
> apparent that such action is only desirable in very rare and severe
> cases. Again, the knowledge that you may have to quickly backtrack and
> perform a public apology should function as a check-and-balance.
>
> Increased transparency and the fear of real consequences to your actions
> should be an adequate deterrent to anyone thinking of stirring the pot.
> It works elsewhere, why should Gentoo be such a special case?!
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4653 bytes --]