On 11/10/2019 1:02 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Patricia,
I think Ross said it well.
Just because I saw someone commit murder, doesn't give me the right to beat
(or hang, or incite others to do) the perpetrator and fair trial is still a
necessity in our civilized society. Lynching is (I hoped) a thing of the
past. I am not willing to give up the basic pillars of our society, just
because someone was offended, or even hurt. Sorry, but to me, the principle
of "rather let a murderer go free, than risk convict an innocent" is still
a strong one. But lately, it seems to no longer be the case.
Witnessing a murder does not give you the right to beat, lynch, etc. On
the other hand, you can say publicly "I saw X murder Y", and the police
will not switch from investigating X to penalizing you just because you
said that. Of course, X has a strong case for defamation damages if you
say it falsely.
If I understand what you are saying, and please post a correction if I
got this wrong, if the victim of an ASF code of conduct violation
described the violation publicly you would want the ASF to switch from
investigating the original violation to penalizing the victim for
talking about it, regardless of the truth of the victim's remarks.
With all due respect
Niclas
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 2:48 PM Ross Gardler
<ross.gard...@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 <p...@acm.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <dev@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Re: FYI
Could you clarify who would be prohibited from public statements by this?
Historically, rules requiring confidentiality have been used to restrict
victims of harassment from talking publicly about incidents. That has
let harassment and assault continue by preventing discovery of a pattern
of behavior with multiple victims.
On 11/9/2019 4:55 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to me
that
the point of "public accusations" should constitute harassment in and of
itself. Do we make that explicit?
// Niclas
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:19 AM Matt Sicker <boa...@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 <kmcgr...@apache.org>
wrote:
Yeah just bringing it for others to loop in.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 15:26 Sally Khudairi <s...@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 | s...@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 <boa...@gmail.com>
