Le jeudi 27 décembre 2018 à 05:56:50+0100, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > Hi all, > > I have serious concerns about the current membership of the > anti-harassment team. > > Specifically, I notice that Molly recently joined the team and she is > also a member of the Outreach team. > > This is not a personal attack on Molly, I simply believe that for > various reasons being in both teams at the same time is incompatible for > anybody. > > At this particular moment, we also had some communications issues in the > GSoC team in 2018 and on that basis, I don't feel it would be > appropriate for any member of that team to suddenly transition to > anti-harassment. No individual member of the team deserves to be blamed > or scapegoated for that, all members of the team have some > responsibility for it. So this is not specific to Molly, we would all > be ineligible. > > It just makes me feel really uncomfortable when one member of the > Outreach team might have been used as a scapegoat to sacrifice on the > high alter of Google and another attends the GSoC mentor summit and then > immediately jumps to anti-harassment like this. > > Anti-harassment might also have a role to play if somebody wants to make > a complaint about Google's influence. Can somebody who attended the > summit at Google's expense be part of that discussion? > > Generalizing the problem, I suggest that anti-harassment may need to > keep track of conflicts of interest, e.g. anybody involved in any other > team that experienced a complaint or a dispute probably shouldn't join > anti-harassment for some period, maybe 12 months or more, after the > complaint was closed. > > Without such protections, it may appear that certain people are immune, > being favoured or that they get access to restricted information about > people they work alongside in another team. I'm not alleging this is > the case with Molly but that is the perception that would arise in any > situation like this. > > Regards, Le jeudi 27 décembre 2018 à 05:41:28+0100, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > On 21/12/18 09:25, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > I agree with Russ that your framing of this is absolutely abhorrent. > > Your continued justification of it is digging a bigger hole. I beg you, > > please take a step back and reconsider your approach here before > > continuing along these lines. > > > > There is clear evidence of character assassination. I'd like to thank > all those who responded after my cash bounty offer. Once again, I > regret that we are in this situation where such methods are necessary. > > The purpose of the culprits is to promote fear, exert control over > others, induce self-censorship, damage relationships around a developer > during a time of acute personal tragedy and coerce somebody to explain > what went wrong in a project by releasing details about their private > life or punish them for not disclosing those details. > > The intention to induce self-censorship is particularly disturbing as it > was timed immediately before the FSFE annual meeting (AGM). > > In fact, Matthias Kirschner at FSFE had already tried to have the > elected representative, myself, removed in an obfuscated motion in May > 2018. That vote failed. He spread a malicious lie about me as a way to > have another vote. He circulated the libellous accusation to many other > people. He threatened to expel me from FSFE without any evidence. He > set a deadline for 20 September for me to respond, just before the AGM > on 7 October. The series of abusive emails from people in Debian > commenced just hours before the Kirschner / FSFE deadline. Under this > overbearing abuse, I felt I could not go on in my role at FSFE and > resigned in disgust. Long live democracy. > > To remove any ambiguity, I resigned in disgust, not in disgrace. > Resignation in such a situation is an act of protest and defiance. > Kirschner continued to send me threats even after my resignation, that > reveals everything you need to know about FSFE's culture. > > Given the circumstances, the smell of conspiracy is like that of a dead > animal who's long dead carcass we will imminently discover. I'm already > contemplating the size of another cash bounty, this time, for somebody > in FSFE to talk. Would it be worth it now that the FSFE fellowship has > imploded, is FSFE a dead duck anyway? > > Chris Lamb, would you be willing to sign an affidavit, swearing on risk > of perjury, that you never had any conversation with anybody at FSFE > this year about the elected fellowship representative, myself? > > FSFE censored communications of the elected representative, including my > blog and mailing list posts, well before I actually resigned. That was > one of the things that immediately came back to me in December when I > saw Norbert's blog vanish. Is Debian now following FSFE down that > slippery slope? > > I'm not the one putting these presents under the Christmas tree, I'm > just the one opening them up. > > I understood the attacks I received since September were a veiled threat > to attack my reputation and thereby exert control over me. It is > character assassination++ > > Also, the similarities with Khashoggi are increasing: even though there > is no bone saw, the culprits acted with great arrogance, they left a > trail that has been a little bit too easy to pick apart and they take us > all for fools with public denials and lies. > > The most striking legacy of such plots are not the empty chairs, it is > the fear in the community. Whether the abuse is delivered by physical > or electronic means, the perpetrators want to send a message that the > next person to speak up will have nowhere to hide, deterring them from > speaking at all. I make no apology for this analogy, if any of you had > been put through hell by such intimidation you would be equally outraged. > > > On 25/12/18 17:13, Norbert Preining wrote: > > There are more disturbing things going on where I suspect that members > > of Debian have taken unduly influence on procedures concerning me, but > > since I don't have proofs I cannot raise them here. > > Norbert also appears to suspect that he is a victim of libel and > character assassination. > > Such things are always abhorrent. But when somebody uses a leadership > position to conduct such behaviour it is extraordinarily reprehensible. > For the victims, it makes us feel like the weight of the whole > organization is being weaponized against us when a leadership figure > behaves like this. It also means the damaging effects of the lies are > felt a lot further away and it is harder to undo them. It forces us to > expose the person who spread the lies for their complete lack of integrity. > > People raised concerns privately about why this is being brought up at > Christmas. That is because the hole was already dug in September when > Chris Lamb sent an email to people, the name of a developer in the > subject line. It caused some alarm for people. They are not native > English speakers and some naturally assumed the worst. The email > contained private information from DAM, breaching the trust of DAM. It > was clear that this email would cause harm and it is unfortunate that a > developer would feel the effect of that at this time of year. > > I recently decided to make a personal trip to the Balkans to visit some > of my great friends in the region (they are also great friends of > Debian) and was unfortunate enough to trip on this hole at Christmas. I > regret that, but the hole is not of my digging. As already noted, the > perps started this abuse on the eve of my wedding anniversary, insulted > me on planet on the eve of my birthday and this is what they left under > the Christmas tree, a landmine. > > I would urgently request that Chris Lamb, in his role as Debian Project > Leader, issues an apology on behalf of the project and ensures that keys > are restored to the keyring immediately. > > I would also request that DAM privately furnish each developer concerned > with copies of all correspondence from Chris Lamb. Should they fail to > do so, I will call a GR demanding they do so. > > In September, DAM suggested that any developer in this situation could > call a vote to correct bad decisions. In July, I told Chris Lamb > privately that serious and extraordinary personal circumstances impacted > my participation this year, that communication never should have gone > any further. But asking me to put the full details in front of the > community for a vote is abhorrent and will bring the whole project into > disrepute. I will announce the vote on 28 December, the third > anniversary of Ian Murdock's death. Continuing to debate or vote on a > developer's private life could be the death of the project. > > If anybody else has concerns that they feel they can't discuss publicly > or with the official leaders of the project, I am happy to try and > discuss them with you privately, either by email, phone call or a > meeting and I commit to show a higher level of respect for your privacy > than what has been extended to me. > > Regards, Le jeudi 27 décembre 2018 à 12:09:10+0100, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > On 27/12/18 11:17, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Dear Daniel. > > > > Daniel Pocock - 27.12.18, 05:41: > >> On 21/12/18 09:25, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >>> I agree with Russ that your framing of this is absolutely abhorrent. > >>> Your continued justification of it is digging a bigger hole. I beg > >>> you, please take a step back and reconsider your approach here > >>> before continuing along these lines. > >> There is clear evidence of character assassination. I'd like to thank > >> all those who responded after my cash bounty offer. Once again, I > >> regret that we are in this situation where such methods are > >> necessary. > > I do not intend to comment on the other stuff discussed here, … as I > > clearly do not have a complete picture of what is going on, just > > fragments. > > > > However, I see setting bounties for "denouncing" people as harmful to > > the Debian project. > > Let me make it absolutely clear: the bounty is not for denouncing > people, molesting them or any other bad behaviour. The bounty was > offered as a request for factual information, for example, copies of > emails and documents. To make an analogy, a bug bounty is not paid for > cutting off the head of the developer responsible for the bug. > > I emphasized the need to reply privately: in other words, no money has > been offered to publicly attack anybody. > > Before offering the bounty, I already knew enough about the situation to > know it was more than wild speculation. > > Another benefit of this bounty was getting facts that clear the names of > people who did not disseminate private or disparaging information. The > person who disseminated information, Chris Lamb, owes an apology to DAM > and AH for bringing the integrity of their processes into disrepute. > > > From what I see it would be most beneficial if the people who are > > involved would just meet and speak about it from person to person or at > > least in some kind of voice conference call. Maybe with a help of a > > mediator, who is clearly not involved with the issue to be cleared up. > > That is excellent advice, in fact, I tried it well before offering the > bounty. > > This is what I wrote to Chris Lamb in March 2018 > > "It seems we are both sometimes disappointed with the communications > between ourselves. We both believe in the same things and we both > believe in the integrity and reputation of the Debian project. > > Maybe the mode of communications isn't ideal. Could it be better for us > to find an opportunity to discuss things in person perhaps? I am > usually in the UK once per month, usually around Herts, currently I'm > here until Thursday." > > Lamb has told me throughout this year he hasn't had time. Yet documents > I received show me he found time to spread gossip. What is a better use > of a leader's time, meeting a developer face to face or speculating > behind their back at a time of personal tragedy? What is more likely to > protect the project's reputation and what is more likely to backfire? > > Regards, Hi Daniel, At first I had no opinion regarding your expellation from Debian Members. Not because I don't care but because I didn't have the time to look into your past activities to make myself an opinion. But seeing these eails (among others, eg the bounty one), I start to think you're better out than in. Your attitude links to complotism and disinformation campaign with targeted abuses. Knowing how excessive this behaviour may seem from outside, you should have known that evidences are mandatory when you put fingers this way and have such an attitude. Yet you fail to provide a shred of evidence here. My first guess would be that you don't have any. Either prove me wrong or grow up and stop spamming this list with such awkward stuff. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature