I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:
1) a polarizing issue is brought up on the list
1a) (optional) there is some discussion with a few interesting points
2) people start arguing (useful debate has ended)
I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:
I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule
to bounce messages to public lists at #3 [...]
I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:
1) a polarizing issue is brought up on the list
1a) (optional) there is some discussion with a few interesting points
2) people start arguing (useful debate has ended)
3) people start using offensive language somehow expecting it to help the situation (while also feeling justified in breaking the rules because
someone else broke a different, "more important" rule)
4) someone points out the offensive language in #4 is, in fact, against the rules
5) someone claims that the act of pointing out the offensive language detracts from the argument^Wdiscussion or human dignity or what have you (I think it was actually the decision to break the "lesser" rule)
I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule
to bounce messages to public lists at #3 (ie. those containing language that is unquestionably against both the Code of Conduct and the mailing list code of conduct) with a message asking the sender to please revise their message and links to the relevant documents stating what is acceptable (as if they don't already know). The common belief seems to be that "we are all adults here", but we haven't been acting that way.
If there are cries about censorship, I guess we could make the bounce a "warning: you are about to break the rules so blatantly that software can figure it out in front of the whole internet, do you want to continue?" -- but I think we should also have more deterrents for breaking the rules in this case.
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:22:57PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:
I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:
[...]
I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule to bounce messages to public lists at #3 [...]
The problem with this is... who is going to do that?
- If you have just a few in charge, their biases will dominate:
what is and is not offending is bound to interpretation;
- if you have some formal process in charge (voting, etc.),
someone has to bear its burden;
- etc. etc.
In short, you are posing That One Very Hard Question™: how does
a group of people manage "getting along together"?
You're not the first one to pose it, mind you :-)
I think the current set-up in the Debian mailing lists is a good
equilibrium: there is a moderation, but it only intervenes in
exceptional cases. Usually, intervention is from the participants
in the list.
I feel these words always contribute to a toxic environment, however they
are being used intentionally by people I respect who hold a lot of influence in this group, in open defiance of the accepted rules. Using a small shell script (or regex) to catch the strongest of language (that should never be used anyway) seems like a simple way to slow escalation in many cases.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have not seen this class of words used constructively in lists, and they are already forbidden.
I don't think it would be fair to ask moderators to police these words.
There would be a cost to them both in time and in relationships with others.
I feel these words always contribute to a toxic environment, however they
are being used intentionally by people I respect who hold a lot of influence in this group, in open defiance of the accepted rules. Using a small shell script (or regex) to catch the strongest of language (that should never be used anyway) seems like a simple way to slow escalation in many cases.
So in the end, I think the only real way is to raise awareness, with
the goal tha /we all/ try to help keeing a friendly tone.
It's a fine line to walk, between intervening (good) and vigilante
(perhaps too much), and one important point is to try not to assume
malice when something comes across as offensive, but still try to
explain to the original poster why I perceive his/her post as such.
"Eldon" == Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:
But I think a blanket prohibition would be harmful:
"Martin" == Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> writes:
Dear Tomas, dear Debian community,
I remember that at the recent KDE Academy meetups, I think the last two, there has been some workshop about non-violent communication.
Maybe it would be an idea to propose something like that for the next Debconf or maybe even some online meeting before?
If you like I can look up or ask about the details for those workshops.
I did not attend them.
[…]Martin> I remember that at the recent KDE Academy meetups, I think"Martin" == Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> writes:
Martin> the last two, there has been some workshop about non-violent
Martin> communication.
Martin> Maybe it would be an idea to propose something like that for
Martin> the next Debconf or maybe even some online meeting before?
I've found NVC to be incredibly useful.
I have had no formal training but have read some of their books and
then started trying to use it for years.
Some people in the project have gotten NVC training they weren't very
happy with.
I'd love to see good NVC training at DebConf.
Or training in any other empathy framework or similar.
One complaint i've heard is that the training is expensive.
In our current climate, "um whatever," is my response.
I think that any training that helps us work together would be worth
its weight in modern servers.
"Eldon" == Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:
Eldon> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Eldon> I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about
Eldon> English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have
Eldon> not seen this class of words used constructively in lists,
Eldon> and they are already forbidden.
I'd be against that.
I think the blanket prohibition of profanity in the list code of
conduct is outdated and harmful.
But I think a blanket prohibition would be harmful:
* Sometimes you are quoting others or quoting something with artistic or
literary value.
* Tone policing is a thing. <snip>
* Sometimes profanity directed at a situation really does let you get
off a little steam. <snip>
Preface: Some people may consider it petty to care about this. I am not trying to be petty. I honestly feel sad and hurt every time I see this language on these lists. The language over the last few weeks has me
feeling sick inside. I'll admit that I'm likely in a small minority here, but I do not believe that I am the only person who feels this way.
That seems to be a good idea. I can't say I'll be at the next Debconf, life seems to be currently against it. But never say never :-)
I think the blanket prohibition of profanity in the list code of
conduct is outdated and harmful.
I can't recall a case of listmaster@ actually enforcing the prohibition
of profanity, and I'm unaware of anyone actually using packet radio for receiving listmail anymore. [If they are, I really hope it's encrypted.]
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 88:51:26 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,100 |
Messages: | 5,277,436 |