This is likely to be my last message on this sub-thread, or at least I'm definitely slowing down responses. Replying to two messages.
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon <[email protected]> writes: Matthew> Josh Triplett <[email protected]> writes: >> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: >> > What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical >> committee? >> >> Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier >> way of handling this. See the "Maximum term for tech ctte >> members" thread. Such a proposal would deal with this without >> singling anyone out and without explicitly censuring any >> particular actions, and would furthermore establish an ongoing >> procedure that seems more broadly useful. Matthew> I'm not sure encouraging "if you hate Ian, vote for a Matthew> maximum term for committee members" is very constructive. Hi Matthew, I feel that I at least haven't been heard very well when I read the above and would like to be heard differently. I do not hate Ian. I do not think anything Josh has said implies that Josh hates Ian. I disagree with some of the actions Ian has chosen to take very strongly. I believe that they tend to create a community that discourages a form of compassionate, constructive discussion I value strongly. I value that form of discussion strongly enough that I believe it is appropriate to take steps to exclude people who are not acting with compassion and respect. Such steps can include talking to those people and asking them to step back until they are ready, as well as more formal procedures. For me, nothing about this involves hate. I can sometimes really understand a deep hurt that someone is feeling that motivates them to act in a manner I disagree with. Often, that understanding is sufficient that I can connect with them and find a place where we can meet with compassion and respect. Sometimes, the greatest understanding does not bridge that gap. Obviously, I cannot speak for Josh, but I hope I at least am heard differently than you imply above. Aigars> On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett <[email protected]> wrote: >> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't >> start this thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather >> because of a pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no >> signs of changing. Aigars> I do find it quite alarming that this discussion has now Aigars> divulged into a discussion of the behavior one of the Aigars> initiators of the discussion and has completely abandoned Aigars> the actual issues. Regardless of who started what and when, Aigars> attacking personal credibility of your opponent is not a Aigars> winning argument. Unfortunately, this discussion exists within a broader context of a community. In order to be a welcoming community that encourages participation from a broad audience--in order to be a community we want to be part of, we need to have mechanisms for maintaining respectful discourse. It's really hard to say "I disagree very strongly with the behavior of a respected member of this community." That shouldn't be too easy; we don't want people responding in that way every time they get upset or angry. However it must not be too hard, and it absolutely must not be forbidden if we're going to have a good way to respond to behavior that we find does not create the climate we wish to have. Also, while this does not directly disagree with what you say, we may not be in agreement on one key point. I think it is strongly desirable not to respond to technical points until they are raised in a constructive and respectful manner. By doing so we can create incentives to respond as we hope people will. --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/000001499af5767f-b6f607b9-4174-4926-81aa-9cbd56ccff6a-000...@email.amazonses.com
