Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 20:18 UTC (Tue) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
In reply to: Turmoil for Drupal by mjg59
Parent article: Turmoil for Drupal

He said:

> I've seen completely rational normally non-judgemental people become radically judgemental of anyone that participates in it.

In my view it's clear that he doesn't trust anyone per se to be rational especially about this topic.

This position I find very sensible because this is my observation too.

It's your observation that most people are rational and non-judgemental about fringe sexual fetishes? If yes, you must be living in a very enlightened community.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 20:31 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (20 responses)

> In my view it's clear that he doesn't trust anyone per se to be rational especially about this topic.

The problem with this is that it presents no way for handling cases where someone who's a member of the BDSM community *does* behave inappropriately.

> It's your observation that most people are rational and non-judgemental about fringe sexual fetishes? If yes, you must be living in a very enlightened community.

I'm in the San Francisco bay area, so probably? A pretty high percentage of my friends are involved in at least one fringe sexual fetish.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 21:51 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (18 responses)

> The problem with this is that it presents no way for handling cases where someone who's a member of the BDSM community *does* behave inappropriately.

Sure there is: Drupal already spells out, in their Code of Conduct, what they consider "inappropriate", and their dispute resolution process document shows how they adjudicate things. If those documents are somehow deficient and there are further classes of "inappropriateness" left out (or they use a different process than published), then those documents should be updated to whatever is the actual standard.

(Furthermore, for particularly egregious inappropriateness, a call can be made to the local constabulary.)

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 22:12 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (17 responses)

The dispute resolution process was followed and failed to result in resolution, at which point the issue was escalated to the project leadership who made a decision based on information that hasn't been made public. Which bit of their procedure do you feel wasn't followed?

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 22:46 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (16 responses)

from the Community Working Group Charter:

Transparency and appeals
The CWG aims to be as transparent as possible by deliberating and documenting its decisions publicly when able. In sensitive situations, however, the group may omit details out of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved.

IMHO you are way out into a gray area at best when "omit details" is interpreted to include "we won't tell you the reason at all".

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 22:53 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (15 responses)

That's the CWG charter. The decision wasn't made by the CWG.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 23:04 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (14 responses)

"That's the CWG charter. The decision wasn't made by the CWG."
In that case the conflict resolution procedure, linked from the Code of Conduct, was not followed. It directs that unresolved conflicts will be escalated to the CWG.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 23:18 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (13 responses)

> Much of that information had been turned over to the Drupal Community Working Group (CWG), which "initially found that there were no Code of Conduct violations by Larry" the group said in a statement. The CWG tried to mediate between the parties (Garfield and Klaus Purer, evidently, though only Garfield names Purer), which failed. At that point, the CWG escalated the matter to Buytaert.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 3, 2017 18:06 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (12 responses)

Mathew, I appreciate that your personal knowledge and experience with the people involved gives you confidence they didn't do anything inappropriate, maybe if I knew them personally I might be more inclined to believe but I've seen far too many people react badly to BDSM. These range from all way on the left in women's rights activists to the far right conservative Christians. I've seen perfectly rational people argue this activity between consenting adults is rape and assault.

This fringe sexual activity is hated by significant numbers of people and without full disclosure it paints a pictures of bias. Particularly as I've seen no evidence they provided this information to the accused as they should.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 3, 2017 18:16 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (11 responses)

I have no idea what the withheld information is, but there are certainly scenarios where releasing it could involve (say) outing other people (and, again, I have no evidence that this is the case here). I strongly disagree with the fact that information about someone's sexual preferences was released against their will. I think that doing so should be considered a gross violation of community standards and handled appropriately. But I also don't want us to end up in a situation where being a member of a persecuted group means that someone is able to get away with unacceptable behaviour.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 5, 2017 0:09 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (10 responses)

I don't disagree but would like to point out again they stated affirmatively that there was no violation of the code of conduct. If the code of conduct covers all the important stuff I don't understand how he could have done anything while working for the project to get him tossed without the fringe sexual activities in his personal life playing a role in the decision making process.

It's really quite sad because the lack of information leaves two major possibilities, that they reacted to his private sexual life or that the he did something terrible that was not covered by the code of conduct but which should be. People like me are going to believe number 1 but more people are going to believe number 2 (like you) and honestly that's more damaging to his career than just stating what the reason was because it leaves innuendo and imagination to come up with an explanation for what he did. Every HR person from now till eternity is going to fill in behavior X to explain it where X is whatever they want it to be.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 5, 2017 0:19 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (9 responses)

The code of conduct talks about behaviour within the community. One hypothetical reason for the observed outcome is that behaviour that would have been unacceptable inside the community was found to have occurred outside the community. That would explain the CWG not taking action, but also it being referred to community leadership.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 6, 2017 0:19 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (7 responses)

This sort of speculation and rumormongering is exactly what the prior poster is concerned about.

I also seriously question if activity that takes place outside the community should be grounds for ejecting someone from the community. Taking that approach leads to big brother type investigations of people you don't like to find an excuse for ejecting them.

If the person is well behaved and contributes usefully within the community, why should it matter what they have done elsewhere?

Our communities are supposed to be based on ability and contributions, now who the person is outside the community.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 6, 2017 0:26 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (6 responses)

> If the person is well behaved and contributes usefully within the community, why should it matter what they have done elsewhere?

Because that argument says that if Hitler turns up to a Jewish community meeting and asks to be let in, you have to tolerate him up until the point where he murders everyone.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 6, 2017 0:38 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (5 responses)

nice try, but there is a lot of space between "showing up somewhere" and "murdering everybody"

Especially with an online community, if a person's words within the community are respectful, there's no reason to care what their beliefs, physical appearance, personal hygiene, etc are.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 6, 2017 1:06 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (4 responses)

Would it be wrong for a Jewish community group to refuse to let Hitler join, even if he promised to be good?

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 6, 2017 6:40 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

that's not the question here, the question here is if the guy who has been extremely helpful to the community for years is going to be thrown out because of things he did outside.

As to your question of a Jewish community refusing to allow Hitler to join. Prior to 1920 or so, they would have no more reason to prevent him from joining than they would have had to refuse any Gentile. By 1945, he had shown his bad behavior to that community directly, so it's not a case of ignoring outside behavior and only taking into account the actions within that community.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 6, 2017 7:52 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

> that's not the question here

The question that you raised was whether a community should reject someone based on their behaviour outside the community This hypothetical is absolutely related to that question.

> By 1945, he had shown his bad behavior to that community directly,

So it's reasonable to exclude someone who treats, say, women badly from a community that either includes or aspires to include women?

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 7, 2017 16:15 UTC (Sun) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

If he had demonstrated actual bad behaviour towards women, sure.

Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for even a modicum of evidence to back up that claim. Heck, even the "accused" here is publicly asking for said evidence -- or even a specific allegation of bad behaviour.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted Jul 15, 2017 17:47 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

If it is reasonable, the community needs to be sure the views are indeed beyond the pale to the vast majority of the community. You can not achieve that by allowing a very small section of the community to rule in secret.

Transparency is critical here.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted Jul 15, 2017 17:45 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

So it's due behaviour entirely outside the Drupal community?

Down that path lies excommunicating people from a range of communities that have backwards attitudes to women, or certain minorities, or certain nationals. A number of religious communities particularly. Is that correct?

There are people I've worked with whose political views I find highly regressive, and I'm sure many others would too. Should technical communities exclude people with certain views? I actually feel like I /would/ to sometimes, when those political views are so disgusting, and I have an emotional reaction. Then I think about it more rationally and wonder if that kind of divisiveness would help in the longer run, how objective it could be, where this kind of approach would end up, etc.

Turmoil for Drupal

Posted May 2, 2017 22:02 UTC (Tue) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

The absolute bare minimum requirement in any action such as this is to share the complete set of specific allegations used as the reason for the action, with the person against whom the action is taken. How can you even begin to have a fair process if the accused isn't provided with all the allegations, and given an opportunity to respond?

Then it's up to the accused as to whether or not they want to make the allegations public.