Hi Boris,

On 2016-10-09 15:11, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

This is my last post in this thread, since it's pretty clear to me that this is 
going nowhere.

I thank you for your otherwise constructive intervention in this thread, 
however I find it suboptimal to decide what your last post will be before the 
discussion has ended, but if that is your decision, I do not consider it useful 
to declare it.

  But just on the off chance that you really are missing something instead of 
being willfully obtuse, I will try one last time.

On 10/9/16 2:15 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
That is not even what I meant. These reports were marked as incomplete
when there was not a single comment asking for more information
displayed in Bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=830048 is the clearest
example, since there was no comment at all. Even now, nobody has
requested any information, yet the report displays as incomplete.

I covered this in my previous response.  The commenter knew you could not 
provide information because your account was disabled, hence there was no point 
in asking you for it...

There is a point even if the reporting account is disabled; the account could 
provide the information once re-enabled, or someone else could, if only the 
missing information was specified.

And indicating that more information was requested is one thing; marking the 
issue as resolved is entirely different. I understand that Bugzilla does not 
allow expressing uncertainty about resolution, but an issue should not be 
marked as resolved unless it is reasonable to think the issue was indeed solved.


https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288913#c9 seems to be
the justification.

The only sentence related to this which I can identify there is the
unfortunately your activities here have left me with little choice but
to disable your account.
Since the author did not specify what he meant by "here", which
activities he referred to or even anything which he would consider
suboptimal in these unspecified activities, "non-justification" would
seem like a better description of that sentence.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288913#c7 specifies the 
activities, along with a clear warning that continuing them may lead to your 
account being disabled.

That would not qualify as a warning.

Normally, a restriction against a participant would be put in place after 
administrators notice or are alerted to unacceptable behavior in a number of 
situations. One uninvolved administrator would send a formal warning to the 
problematic participant not to perform a certain number of undesirable actions. 
If the participant performs a certain number of these undesirable actions after 
being warned not to, a number of administrators would evaluate the 
participant's contribution, and if his overall contribution was determined to 
be negative, they would announce the restriction explaining its nature and the 
reasons why it was put in place. Ideally - and I hope a project as large as 
Mozilla can afford that - at least one of these administrators would differ 
from the one issuing the formal warning.

Now, in this case, while we cannot say for sure who put this in place and why, 
it appears to me the restriction was implemented after a single situation, a 
maximum of 1 warning, by a single administrator who was involved in that single 
situation, who failed to evaluate where the participant's overall contribution 
was negative. As for the comment you refer to, if its author did mean it as a 
formal warning, its author was the same as the administrator who implemented 
the restriction (or at least one of them).

And since that administrator was involved, he wrote what you describe as a 
warning in the course of the situation, in one of the comments where he tried 
to defend his position.
I remember reading the comment you refer to, but I do not remember realizing 
that its author could have meant it as a formal warning, nor even realizing 
that its author was in a position to deliver such a warning.

Perhaps more importantly, what you describe as the activities warned against is in fact a 
single activity: "pushing further" on the issue reported in ticket #1285748. A 
warning should be specific; it should ask to avoid negative actions, not actions which 
may be positive or negative.

Most importantly, while the activities which were considered to disable still 
haven't been disclosed, we can already tell they do not correspond to that 
which Byron disagreed with, or that these took place before the comment which 
you describe as a warning.

And if some are not alarmed yet, do note that the comment is a reply to a 
hidden comment.

As the forwarded mail shows, I have requested an actual justification
from bugzilla-ad...@mozilla.org

I suspect that bugzilla-ad...@mozilla.org is in fact the same as the commenter 
in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288913#c7 and he may not feel 
like it's worth wasting his time to repeat to you again the things he already 

Welcome to item #10. Affected contributors, like you and me, have no way to 
tell whether the contact point is monitored by 10 people, by a single person 
indeed, or if the group which originally treated it has entirely left. It could 
have been 1 hour since that contact point replied to a request, 1 week, or 
years; I do not see how affected contributors could evaluate the system's 

Filipus Klutiero

governance mailing list

Reply via email to