[diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Alan McConchie]

So I have a lot of comments here. Bear with me.

First I want to say that I support Darrell's decision. I'm sure it was a difficult decision to make. Given the complexity of the context, I think it was as firm as necessary but also appropriately flexible considering that this is the first time that moderator power has been exercised on this list, and given that the CoC is not officially in force yet.

Thanks, Paul, for pointing out that this list has not formally adopted the CoC. Paul writes, "[a] moderator could use such a code of conduct as a guide to coming to a decision, but the decision must be justified in of itself." Firstly, I think Darrell's decision shows that he _was_ trying to follow the spirit of the CoC, while making some necessary adjustments. For example, the CoC says nothing about 60 day bans, only that violations are forgiven after 6 months. I think the 60 day temporary ban that Darrell decided on is a smart compromise to make the list feel safe in the short term and make everyone take a deep breath, but without being as severe as a complete ban. I think Darrell was very careful to come up with a solution that wouldn't be perceived as dictatorial.

Secondly, I think the decision was justified in and of itself. Clearly the messages in this thread show that there is disagreement among the list members as do whether the decision was appropriate or if it was "overstepping bounds". Fundamentally all these decisions will be somewhat subjective on the part of the moderator. Note that even in the draft CoC there is a clause that extreme violations (which includes "abusive" statements) are not subject to the three-strikes rule. Obviously, this will be a subjective decision that the moderator(s) will have to make. There will always be times where the moderators will have to make decisions that some of the list membership will disagree with. But personally, and for this list especially, I would rather see the moderator error on the side of enforcing the CoC and trying to keep this list as a safe space, rather than leaning on the side of laissez faire free-speech. We have plenty of that on the other OSM lists, and they all have a well-earned reputation as toxic spaces.

It's also significant that Darrell outlined an in-list appeal process, and I'd also like to thank Paul for pointing out that Serge can also appeal to the Communications Working Group. I think both of these channels for appeal should be kept open. Maybe it's good that we will have our own appeals process in addition to the CWG, because we may want to develop different standards on this list compared to other lists. We should discuss this further.

I'd also like to address Paul's observation about Alyssa's "repeated triggering". Personally, I think her statement was made in good faith and I don't think it would warrant anything beyond a warning (if that), but I realize others may see things differently. I'm not opposed to discussing Alyssa's statements further, but I think Serge needs to be responsible for his own actions regardless of what we think about what Alyssa said. If we want to propose that the moderator gives Alyssa a warning or other sanction, then we should take that up in a separate thread.

I appreciate Frederik's concerns about the appearance of a "secret court", and I agree that evidence should be presented publicly as much as possible, but I think there are also lots of situations where secrecy and privacy is at least as important, especially to protect accusers from retaliation. This mailing list is not a court of law, and we don't necessarily have to follow those rules. It's difficult to balance public and private evidence, and again it's a situation where we simply have to have moderators that the list trusts to make wise decisions. If we can't trust our moderators we need a way to replace them with ones that most of us do trust. Part of the role of the moderator is and should be to make delicate decisions with information that may not be fully public.

We also have to trust our moderators to be balanced when listening to these private messages. Darrell did say "I would welcome off-list comments," before making his decision. I interpret that as an impartial request, not a solicitation of nothing but more accusations. Supporters of Serge had as much of a chance to weigh in as anyone else.

Also, we've now had two people saying they would leave the list if X thing doesn't happen. A few days ago Randal said he'd leave the list if Serge wasn't banned. Now Jo says she'll leave the list if the ban isn't lifted. I'd argue that neither of these positions are very helpful. If you're going to leave the list, do it for yourself for the preservation of your own sanity (I'd fully understand that!). But I don't think it's very effective as an ultimatum. 

Jo, I'm sorry to see you go, if you are truly intent on leaving. I'd much rather have you stay and help us work through all of this together.

Finally, shouldn't we just adopt the CoC? Now? Isn't it good enough?

Alan