-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'd thought I'd follow up on my mediation not politics message, based on
the rest of the thread, and private emails, because these have altered
my opinion.
I had forgotten just how argumentative sven was, and I have a tendency
to see the past on rose-coloured glasses (can't change it; may as well
make the best of it). I also have learnt that he has been asked to
modify his behaviour before, and at least says he agrees that he was
wrong, but returns to the same pattern.
Based on what I've seen and been reminded of, I am not so sure that
mediation would be successful. Having said that, there does seem to be
some agreement that having a neutral third party mediate prior to an
expulsion procedure makes sense. I also found that the message
advertising for people to help expel sven rather poorly put.
That brings up the smell test. I think the present expulsion process
and in particular advertising on debian-devel to meet Q fails to pass
the smell test with regards to whether the process is fair and not just
a vendetta. It may not be, but it looked to me like it was.
I think the posting of the irc snippet and the following two paragraphs
are what made the expulsion seconder request smell bad to me.
> Sven's behavior has always been combative (and some might argue
> hostile), but this is beyond what is acceptable. He threatens bodily
> harm upon another developer in a public forum, and then a week later
> publically insults/taunts a developer (one of the Release Managers,
> even), behind his back. This is incredibly childish, aggressive
> behavior, and should not be tolerated within the project (IMO).
>
> Some might argue that we should just kick him from the channel and
> remove his commit access to the debian-kernel project, but that does
> not solve the problem of him abusing other teams, as well as his
> abusive mailing list posts. He also {co-,}maintains some 47
> packages, which means users for those packages will have to deal w/
> him as well. I believe it is better if he is removed from the
> project altogether, as he damages it more than he helps.
I think that is because this sounds like it's personal and also like
saying "see he's bad; be a seconder".
Unlike the others I don't have problems with an expulsion procedure
existing or the ability to limit posts etc in *extreme* cases. While I
don't agree that a slippery-slope argument is *always* a fallacy, I
think that in the case of the argument that some banning will lead to
arbitrary censorship it is.
Having mediation by a neutral third party first would help make sure
that the process was (and more importantly *appears*) fair. Sticking to
a more informational message when looking for seconders would help.
More along the lines of: mediation with x has failed; looking for those
who have experience with x (good or bad); please email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you do.
If transparency is an issue then a summary of the emails would probably
be a good idea.
Comments like the following should be avoided:
> I don't care about your reasons why people should not be forcefully
> removed from the project. Those who feel this way probably have not
> had to work w/ Sven on a team for the past 2 years.
"I don't care about you reasons" was particularly badly put. Live and
learn I suppose.
Just my $0.02,
Daniel
- --
And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early,
now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or
strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEG1H7eVDHer2Nu1QRAgw2AKCl8wUkStlo+yUMFAl6QqCE7XkDnACeN3Az
4gzyIfsSrV8Yt51nAUtucNM=
=FphR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
