You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org> on 2019/11/08 20:18:27 UTC
FYI
https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/11/08/OpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: FYI
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
planners@ is a public list with vendors & sponsors. I have no good answer
for how I would have done this differently but your idea isn't a bad one.
I would likely have done the opposite though and point out the board@
thread and pointed other lists there.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:47 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about not crossposting but instead posting a separate pointer on board@
> .
>
> That way the followups stay limited to one list.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:58 AM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think the message needed cross posting to bring it to the attention of
> > people on the board, dealing with roadshows/cons and those dealing with
> > diversity. But I didn't think it belonged on members@.
> >
> > Where would you suggest it have been posted?
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 07:56 Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 15:58 Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement,
> so
> > > > this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the
> > planners@
> > > > list.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fwiw the original message was crossposted to three lists. (I wish
> people
> > > wouldn't do that.) The discussion over on planners@ was very
> productive,
> > > I
> > > think.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
How about not crossposting but instead posting a separate pointer on board@.
That way the followups stay limited to one list.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:58 AM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I think the message needed cross posting to bring it to the attention of
> people on the board, dealing with roadshows/cons and those dealing with
> diversity. But I didn't think it belonged on members@.
>
> Where would you suggest it have been posted?
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 07:56 Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 15:58 Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement, so
> > > this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the
> planners@
> > > list.
> > >
> >
> > Fwiw the original message was crossposted to three lists. (I wish people
> > wouldn't do that.) The discussion over on planners@ was very productive,
> > I
> > think.
> >
> > >
> >
>
Re: FYI
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
I think the message needed cross posting to bring it to the attention of
people on the board, dealing with roadshows/cons and those dealing with
diversity. But I didn't think it belonged on members@.
Where would you suggest it have been posted?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 07:56 Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 15:58 Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement, so
> > this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the planners@
> > list.
> >
>
> Fwiw the original message was crossposted to three lists. (I wish people
> wouldn't do that.) The discussion over on planners@ was very productive,
> I
> think.
>
> >
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
Agreed. I learned plenty from the planners list. Thanks for flagging it Rich.
---
Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry
________________________________
From: Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 4:56:24 AM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Re: FYI
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 15:58 Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement, so
> this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the planners@
> list.
>
Fwiw the original message was crossposted to three lists. (I wish people
wouldn't do that.) The discussion over on planners@ was very productive, I
think.
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 15:58 Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement, so
> this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the planners@
> list.
>
Fwiw the original message was crossposted to three lists. (I wish people
wouldn't do that.) The discussion over on planners@ was very productive, I
think.
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey Matt, Niclas,
While prison is almost certainly worse, we really shouldn't underestimate
the negative effects that cyber-mobbing can have. People have lost their
livelihoods, and even committed suicide over cyber-mobbing. Social
approbation is a really powerful punishment, because we are social
animals. It's also true that mobbing (cyber- and real-) is as likely to be
directed at "victims" as it is at "villains." Christina Ford for example
needed private security after her testimony to Congress.
There are good reasons to keep CoC complaints and outcomes private and they
are as much to protect the victims as they are to protect the accused
(innocent or otherwise).
There are also countries in which it is a legal requirement. For example,
in Germany you will never find the names of victims or of people convicted
of most crimes in the newspaper. People need the opportunity to
rehabilitate, and that includes the opportunity to break from their past
deeds: something that is impossible in the US where criminal records are
fairly easy to discover with or without consent. It is not appropriate to
throw people away for their mistakes and failings. For example: remove RMS
from all positions of authority? Sure. Make him homeless? Nope.
But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement, so
this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the planners@
list.
Best,
Myrle
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 17:29 Niclas Hedhman <ni...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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
> >> > >>>>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
> >> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
> >> > >>>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
> >> > >>>>>> - 703.798.0171
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> --
> >> > >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> >> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
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 <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 17:29 Niclas Hedhman <ni...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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
>> > >>>>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
>> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
>> > >>>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
>> > >>>>>> - 703.798.0171
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> --
>> > >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: FYI
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 17:29 Niclas Hedhman <ni...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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
> > >>>>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
> > >>>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
> > >>>>>> - 703.798.0171
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: FYI
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
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, 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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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
> >>>>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
> >>>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>> - 703.798.0171
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: FYI
Posted by Andrew Musselman <an...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I saw that question; I feel like it's jumping the gun to talk about
how to punish people who claim to have been harmed.
I would prefer to guide the conversation to how to minimize damage to
anyone involved and hasten resolution and amends.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 9:24 AM Patricia Shanahan <pa...@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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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
> >>>>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
> >>>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>> - 703.798.0171
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
> On 10 Nov 2019, at 18:23, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@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?
Andrew Musselman wrote:
...
> Yes, I saw that question; I feel like it's jumping the gun to talk about
> how to punish people who claim to have been harmed.
Perhaps raise the helicopter a bit.
What do we want here ?
I think what we want here is that what would further the foundations goals*. I.e. as narrow as our bylaws/corp. document - or as broad as our mission.
But just that. (And even though as a person I may well labour daily to fix things that I feel are unfair and `use apache for that', make society more just & do a lot of things in that vein & some publicly. And some of that may reflect well those associated with me; and some may not - depending on the eye of the beholder. Or even campaign for politicians some others would find very objectionable).
So for that we need to ensure that the we have a healthy community (and I personally think that means one as diverse as the world we serve — The guidelines of the CoC provide, I think, a good, prioritised, list. ).
And lots of things, including all forms of harassment, are very much counter to that goal. As they damage our ability to provide software for the public good. And that is why they need stamping out when they happen. Swiftly.
However I think it stops there too; so we should and must take action for & on behalf of our community; and do so fast to prevent festering -- but once we’ve tackled some issue (and that may well feel very punishing to those involved or ousted) - a lot of the followup may not be ours*. Especially as we should keep in mind that some back-stoppers outside the ASF, such as defamation lawsuits are only available to a very small fraction of our international community.
That is not saying that we should by definition shy away from this. IMHO — a healthy community may well need to report things to the authorities - or similar such steps. Not in the least to protect others or its members from further abuse in different settings.
That said - the `automatic’ aspect troubles me - but solving it through angles like `reflect bad on the ASF’ and hence counter to the ASF its mission - like what we somewhat try to do in our Board CoC; does not feel, to me, as an ideal solution either.
Dw
*: The hackspace in London strikes this balance with keeping the initial formal warning or ban `private (by default - with the board making sporadic exceptions)’ - but with clear & swift communication; transparent & open - yet not `in the public view’.
Re: FYI
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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
>>>>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
>>>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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 <km...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>> - 703.798.0171
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Andrew Musselman <an...@gmail.com>.
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 <pa...@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 <pa...@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
> >>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
> >>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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 <km...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> - 703.798.0171
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
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 <pa...@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
>>> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
>>>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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 <km...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
>>>> - 703.798.0171
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Andrew Musselman <an...@gmail.com>.
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 <pa...@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
> > <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
> >> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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 <km...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
> >> - 703.798.0171
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
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
> <Ro...@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 <pa...@acm.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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 <km...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
>> - 703.798.0171
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
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.
With all due respect
Niclas
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 2:48 PM Ross Gardler
<Ro...@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.
>
> 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 <pa...@acm.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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 <km...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
> - 703.798.0171
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: FYI
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
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.
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 <pa...@acm.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@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 <bo...@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 <km...@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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&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&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0 - 703.798.0171
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
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 <bo...@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 <km...@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://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/11/08/OpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kevin A. McGrail
>>>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>>>>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
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 <bo...@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 <km...@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://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/11/08/OpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kevin A. McGrail
> > > > Member, Apache Software Foundation
> > > > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> > > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: FYI
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
This is just Uncle Bob being reactionary. What else is new?
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 14:28 Kevin A. McGrail <km...@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://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/11/08/OpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin A. McGrail
> > > Member, Apache Software Foundation
> > > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
> > >
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: FYI
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
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://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/11/08/OpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html
> >
> > --
> > Kevin A. McGrail
> > Member, Apache Software Foundation
> > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
> >
>
Re: FYI
Posted by Sally Khudairi <sk...@apache.org>.
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://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/11/08/OpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>