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
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 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
As the forwarded mail shows, I have requested an actual justification
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
governance mailing list