Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
All posts Drew's posts Post Back to profile
Drew DeVault

Someone responsible for enforcing the code of conduct in a project reaches out to you to discuss your behavior.

Do you (1) listen to them in earnest, ask questions if things are unclear, and take the opportunity for introspection and improvement, or (2) interpret everything they said as a threat, immediately escalate it into an argument, and characterize the email as a harassment campaign targeted against you and endorsed by the employer of the conduct enforcement person?

🤦‍♂️

9 April at 9:14 | Open on fosstodon.org
22 comments
Aleksandra Fedorova :fedora:

@drewdevault

Please remember, people who react like this to the Code of Conduct conversations, do it out of fear of you.

Some of that fear may be based on the fact that they know they did something wrong.

But most of the time, it is based on the previous experience of dealing with authorities, which act without any considerations of the people involved.

This is not making it easier for you, but deescalating is an art we often have to learn on the job.

9 April at 9:28 | Open on fosstodon.org
bensonk

@drewdevault Me? I listen in earnest, ask questions where things are unclear, and try to learn.

But a younger, less experienced me? Well, then it would depend on the context. In this situation, if the context were
- re-litigating old ground with no new information
- laced with threats
- and implying that I'm a bad person without ever speaking to me

Well, then, I might feel attacked, even victimized. I might take the corp email address as evidence the attack came from the establishment.

@drewdevault Me? I listen in earnest, ask questions where things are unclear, and try to learn.

But a younger, less experienced me? Well, then it would depend on the context. In this situation, if the context were
- re-litigating old ground with no new information
- laced with threats
- and implying that I'm a bad person without ever speaking to me

9 April at 9:39 | Open on hachyderm.io
Beans (Baked)

@drewdevault so this is about vaxry right?

I think his conduct was poor, but I do agree with many of his points and empathise with his feeling threatened weather or not it was justified. I do feel that, regardless of his conduct off platform, he is still deserving of being included in on topic technical discussions on freedesktop.

9 April at 9:45 | Open on linuxrocks.online
Drew DeVault

@MyBeansAreBaked "I do feel that, regardless of his conduct off platform, he is still deserving of being included in on topic technical discussions on freedesktop."

Why? That does not seem reasonable. #weliveinasociety

For the record I find his behavior in this thread sufficient cause for a ban even without taking into account his behavior off-platform. And the official reason for the ban is even more agreeable: he stated that he will refuse any future communication from the CoC team.

9 April at 9:49 | Open on fosstodon.org
Beans (Baked)

@drewdevault

yes, I suppose if you respond this way to a caution, that is concerning for other community members on freedesktop.

The timing does seem a bit odd, I gather he had made significant improvements in his communty in the time since you brought it to attention? To recieve this after that work must feel like a bit of a slap in the face.

9 April at 10:10 | Open on linuxrocks.online
its_a_me

@drewdevault If this refers to the recent hyprland drama, there are so many things wrong with the situation that nobody came out clean.

1. I wish people would stop using company emails for personal business. I consider responding to a large company to be a completely different situation and it is best to avoid confusion.

2. From what I've seen, none of the mentioned issues are less than 1.5yrs old and have already been already addressed publically

9 April at 9:55 | Open on fosstodon.org
Drew DeVault

@its_a_me
1. I don't think this is a problem and I think interpreting the email as an official statement on behalf of RedHat was a ridiculous strawman
2. The case was never closed, as far as I'm concerned, the accused has never apologized for their behavior and has spent those past 1.5 years posting screeds against social justice warriors on his blog

9 April at 9:57 | Open on fosstodon.org
its_a_me

@drewdevault 1. I agree it should not have been taken as on official redhat email. It just seems messy to be getting emails from *@redhat.com

2. In his first response, he states "Later in the e-mail, they bring up a few points I've already explained, apologized for, or clarified, in past blogposts or other places. All of the comments they bring up are well over 1.5 years old.".

I was under the impression that he apologized to anyone he hurt. If not, I'll need to revise my opinion.

9 April at 10:06 | Open on fosstodon.org
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
@drewdevault ① should be done and is the best scenario, at least I'd say it should be seen as learning the limits and politely acknowledging them, ② is off limits.
By the way I can easily see a scenario ③ where the person disagrees about it, even with being a bit rude, but doesn't creates much drama, like heat of the moment kind of thing, this is why ② to me is off limits.
(Plus a scenario ④ where the person says okay or even apologises but continues exactly as before)
@drewdevault ① should be done and is the best scenario, at least I'd say it should be seen as learning the limits and politely acknowledging them, ② is off limits.
By the way I can easily see a scenario ③ where the person disagrees about it, even with being a bit rude, but doesn't creates much drama, like heat of the moment kind of thing, this is why ② to me is off limits.
9 April at 9:59 | Open on queer.hacktivis.me
Nikita

@drewdevault (3) I get embarrassed, delete all questionable comments and never reply 👉🏻👈🏻

9 April at 10:05 | Open on fosstodon.org
Andy Wootton

@drewdevault About 1.2? Is it a good code of conduct?

9 April at 13:51 | Open on fosstodon.org
Donnan
fictitiousexistence

@drewdevault

The originating email does not represent what you insinuated in your blog:
"if this sort of behavior was seen IN the FDO community"

The person writing the email did not communicate intent clearly, likely due to being personally offended.

The FDO knew who they were dealing with and choose the wrong person for the job.

The entire CoC doesn't actually know the CoC and the email author shows that publicly.

queer.party/@Lyude/11222014629

@drewdevault

The originating email does not represent what you insinuated in your blog:
"if this sort of behavior was seen IN the FDO community"

The person writing the email did not communicate intent clearly, likely due to being personally offended.

The FDO knew who they were dealing with and choose the wrong person for the job.

10 April at 20:09 | Open on noc.social
Go Up