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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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]> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
