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 <[email protected]> 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 > > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM > >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> This is just Uncle Bob being reactionary. What else is new? > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 14:28 Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Yeah just bringing it for others to loop in. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 15:26 Sally Khudairi <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
