He offered to copy the email to the list in the reply I was responding to. :)
I can't resist pointing out the irony of you flagging my conduct on a public list, in an email thread you started to criticise me for flagging someones conduct on the same list. ;) Also, I want to challenge your characterisation of "the CoC hammer". Really, this sort of framing is the type of thing that causes misunderstandings and fear about the code of conduct. Pointing out to someone that what they did was unacceptable should not be seen as bringing down a hammer. Bringing down the hammer is when you take punitive measures. Similarly, saying that commenting on other people's conduct on a public list is done from a place of righteousness or superiority is really sending the wrong message about how we're hoping people will feel empowered by the code of conduct to flag upsetting behaviour early and freely. (Also, again, ironic, in an email flagging my conduct lol.) Electing or not electing someone to the PMC is a very different matter imo. We shouldn't be drawing analogies. I also don't think it's productive to bring up slander. IANAL but I would be surprised if flagging people's conduct on a public list is really something we have to worry about in this respect. And again, circulating ideas like this is only going to discourage people actually making use of the code of conduct. As for the rest, thanks for the clarification. :) On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 03:43 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > I think you misinterpreted a couple things... > > On Nov 17, 2016 02:18, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:. > > > > I quoted a chunk of an email that was sent to me privately because the > > person who sent it had already offered to copy it to the list. I saved > him > > the trouble by excerpting the bit I wanted to remark on. > > If you had permission, please suggest 'shared with your permission...' > rather than 'from your private message to me'. You can see how others will > misconstrue this and question your behavior. > > > More to the point, the code of conduct explicitly states that grievances > > can be aired publicly. > > Yes. But bringing the CoC hammer down in a public way never solves anything > other than a sense of righteousness or superiority, c.f. cited article, and > the CoC itself. Please take time to read and reflect on it, and share your > thoughts. The authors are not insensitive people and would welcome > constructive feedback. > > We have a very basic principle here at the ASF that we consider individuals > in private, within the PMC for inclusion, to spare them the humiliation of > being rejected if the PMC is not on board with their becoming a new > committer or PMC member here and now. Better to revisit it another time. > > We should initially treat most disciplinary measures similarly. If they can > be resolved quietly and spare embarrassment, great. If the complainant > demands more than that, then they too are part of the culture problem. > > And in the US there are certain liabilities of slander that have to be > considered, whether the accusation is factual or not. > > > And regarding your "cesspool" comment. I'm not sure that's a fair, or > > useful, characterisation. > > Whoa... What I said, which wasn't in response to this specific incident, > was... > > > If you have an *actionable* and *productive* suggestion for the *ASF* > > please present it, but let's not let this list become that cesspool > > for endlessly debating the subject, > > This is on the topic of Dave and Helen's reflections on the effective > application and potential for abuse of CoCs in general. I'll let folks fall > down that rabbit hole on that FB discussion thread, but let's keep that > noise off this list until we can come back with actionable proposals, > because the topic of 'to have or not to have' a CoC is itself a trap. > > Cesspool was not a reflection on the discussion in the other thread. > > Hope that clarifies my post. >
