On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 08:37:30AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> The no-mediation approach is un-inclusive towards people who
> involuntarily write things that sound more harsh than meant. This is a
> rather common pattern in nerds that we tend to overreact and overstress
> things. Not doing any
> "Marc" == Marc Haber writes:
Marc> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:04:43PM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> Answering the second question first: my interpretation of
>> mediation in this context is a resolution process for the
>> aforementioned conflicting interpretations,
On 15.07.19 13:02, Sam Hartman wrote:
> First, it sounds like you'd have an interaction where reporters,
> respondents and the DPL (or AH) might all be talking together.
No, although I can see how one could read it like that.
With "including all parties", I meant what you said further below:
>
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:04:43PM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Answering the second question first: my interpretation of mediation in
> this context is a resolution process for the aforementioned conflicting
> interpretations, whereby one or more neutral roles (eg: DPL or A-H)
> attempt a
> "Christian" == Christian Kastner writes:
Christian> However, (this part is a setup for my next answer) for
Christian> any given body of people and one unspecific norm, it is
Christian> possible for two individuals of said body to arrive at
Christian> conflicting
Hi Tina,
On 11.07.19 21:59, Martina Ferrari wrote:
> On 10/07/2019 06:45, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> However, if there's one thing I've learned from reading -project and
>> especially -private in the recent past, it's that where this line is
>> drawn seems to be entirely unclear, and an unclear
Hi,
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019, Marc Haber wrote:
> If you stand the chance of being expelled without your case being heard
> just on the cause that somebody might consider what you said a CoC
> violation, the project should not expect people to speak at all.
Agreed. I for my side will try to remember
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> While Russ didn't challenge my reading of the project's requirements, he
> did something very important. He argued that mediation is focusing even
> more energy on bad behavior; he argued that we don't have the resources
> to approach
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think the question we should be asking ourselves is exactly the one
> Tina posed to Christian:
>
> Tina> How do you see mediation helping draw that line? (Not a rhetorical
> Tina> question, I am honestly curious). Also, there are
Sam Hartman writes:
> I understand Russ has some thoughts that I hope he'll be sharing soon.
I'm afraid that for reasons unrelated to this discussion I'm not going to
have the time or energy to try to expand on my thoughts, and am going to
bow out of this thread.
--
Russ Allbery
Thanks for trying to work this out.
Comments inline.
Scott K
On July 13, 2019 2:23:15 AM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>Hi. In this message I'm speaking as the DPL facilitating a discussion.
>I'm trying to explain where I see the project consensus (or in this
>case
>lack there of). That is I'm
Hi. In this message I'm speaking as the DPL facilitating a discussion.
I'm trying to explain where I see the project consensus (or in this case
lack there of). That is I'm explaining what I'm hearing from the
project and trying to focus future discussion.
First, by this point, I have quite
Thanks -- but the link doesn't seem to work with Gmail (it somehow
mangles it and tries to send to a nonexisting address).
Googling for "gmail in-reply-to" didn't help either (all proposed
solutions seem to require using an external mail client or even
crafting the email message programmatically).
[Replying in a personal capacity here.]
Christian,
On 10/07/2019 06:45, Christian Kastner wrote:
> However, if there's one thing I've learned from reading -project and
> especially -private in the recent past, it's that where this line is
> drawn seems to be entirely unclear, and an unclear
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:02 AM Gerardo Ballabio
wrote:
>
> Gerardo
>
> (P.S. I'd appreciate if anyone could teach me how I can reply to a
> message that I haven't received -- not being subscribed to the list --
> without breaking the thread.)
>
You need to set the In-Reply-To: header to the
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the goal should be to stop the behavior in violation of the Code of
> Conduct.
I see here an implicit assumption that whenever an alleged violation
is reported, the allegation is actually true. I suspect that this is
exactly the problem: many people are concerned
Hi Russ,
I'm deliberately commenting on just two very short fragments of your mails:
On 10.07.19 05:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Telling people they crossed a line and need to stop, and then if necessary
> forcing them to stop by temporarily restricting their access to the place
> where they're
Scott Kitterman writes:
> I suspect it may not be what you meant, but what I'm reading from your
> response is that you think AH should be limited to telling people to be
> quiet or asking DAM to show them the door?
> If that's their scope, why would anyone ever do anything other than
> ignore
On July 10, 2019 1:36:16 AM UTC, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Hi Sam,
>
>Thank you for sending this analysis and the clear effort and thought
>that's gone into it. I'm very glad that you gathered some partial
>data,
>which is a useful addition to the normal mailing list discussions.
>
>I do have some
Hi Sam,
Thank you for sending this analysis and the clear effort and thought
that's gone into it. I'm very glad that you gathered some partial data,
which is a useful addition to the normal mailing list discussions.
I do have some significant concerns about the conclusions you've drawn,
and
[It feels like I've been writing a lot of these messages lately. I
think this is the last thread I know I'll be starting on -project this
week. It's likely I will be starting another thread on debian-private
later in the week. And then off to Debconf!]
Hi.
During May and June I collected
21 matches
Mail list logo
