RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

Sat May 17 02:35:02 UTC 2014

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Matthew Lye <matthew.lye at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> As an impartial observer (not in OPs) I get the feeling that at this stage
> this conversation should be over now:
>
>  Rohan has evidently given some thought to how he should approach the
> situation given another incident, and the result should be a better one or
> avoided completely.
> There has been some valuable discussion on how OPs should approach bans and
> try to de-escalate situations.

I don't see where this happened, in fact, there was no "discussion" --
the only unanimous thought was that OPs need to make judgement calls.

> Just like the referee in a game, the decision should not be argued with the

At least in cricket, this exactly is the reason why there is a third umpire!

> person involved and any further discussion should be moved and should not
> involve Rohan (sorry man, its the way it has to be but thanks for bringing
> that up).
>

>From http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/governance --
"Decisions regarding the Ubuntu distribution and community are taken
in a fair and transparent fashion."

>From http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct --
"We prefer to work transparently and involve interested parties as
early as possible."

If it is the way this has to be -- so be it. But it certainly goes
against the governance guidelines set forth on the website.

> Thanks for trying to discuss the issue civilly and thanks to CP for some
> good advice.
>
> -Matthew Lye
>
>  Leadership is responsibility, not privilege, Action, not position,
> Guidance, not knowledge, and outcome, not disposition.
>
> "Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where it
> often substitutes for both." - John Andrew Holmes
>
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for the kind response, Charles.
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Charles Profitt
>> <indigo196 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> > Rohan:
>> >
>> > Thanks for taking time to write about this to the IRC list. I want to
>> > offer some advice that was given to me a long time ago that I found
>> > valuable.
>> >
>> > advice: When involved in an emotional discussion it is best to step
>> > away, regain emotional balance and refocus on the issue in a positive frame
>> > of mind.
>> >
>> > Specifically:
>> > Reflect on your actions, words and emotions in this situation.
>>
>> Yes, I did reflect a lot on this before writing the email.
>>
>> >      - When re-reading the logs do you feel your involvement helped to
>> > move the situation forward in a positive manner?
>>
>> Yes and no -- as I previously conceded, I definitely could have done
>> better on the channel. However, I do believe that the issues I brought
>> up bear some thought without the bias against me for what I said in
>> IRC. I understand the latter is difficult.
>>
>> >      - How do you feel the people you were talking too felt?
>>
>> No less bad than I did talking to them. Hopefully no more. Then again,
>> if it was only talking this was limited to, I would have had no
>> concerns with how this played out.
>> This is mainly about what I feel is misuse of ops by someone.
>>
>> Thanks again -- your advice on self-reflection is very useful, and I
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> >
>> > I am sure that we would all like to have a happy, friendly and inviting
>> > IRC and I believe this is your concern as well.
>> >
>> > Charles
>> >
>> > ---- Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi ubuntu-irc,
>> >>
>> >> I hang on out #ubuntu as "rohan", generally a lurker -- once in a while
>> >> I
>> >> ask questions and answer things I know.
>> >>
>> >> Today, I encountered something I found disturbing. There was a
>> >> misunderstanding between two users, and an op decided to silence one of
>> >> them. The discussion was civil (no swearing or flooding), but also
>> >> off-topic. I feel silencing a user in this case is overreaching and
>> >> rude --
>> >> especially a user who might have been new to the IRC community (and
>> >> maybe
>> >> new to Ubuntu itself).
>> >>
>> >> On complaining about this in the channel, I was directed to to talk in
>> >> #ubuntu-ops, which I joined and then stopped talking on #ubuntu. On the
>> >> -ops channel (which is logged), I had a few heated words exchanged with
>> >> the
>> >> op who originally took the wrong action (in my opinion). Eventually, it
>> >> boils down to whether words like "blitzkrieg" and "dictator" are
>> >> offensive
>> >> or not.
>> >>
>> >> Since the logs are public[1][2], I'll cut a long story short: the op
>> >> chose
>> >> to ban me from #ubuntu for a week. This was without me talking in
>> >> #ubuntu
>> >> or provoking drama in the main channel at all. The reason given was
>> >> that I
>> >> was likely to misbehave in #ubuntu, without there having been any
>> >> evidence
>> >> of having done so. As the logs will show, I tried to make my point in
>> >> various ways, sometimes being drawn out. In interest of list readers'
>> >> time,
>> >> I can summarise the ensuing discussion as unfruitful and borderline
>> >> hostile
>> >> -- in (large) part due to my own insistence of remaining in the
>> >> channel. I
>> >> was unequivocally told to leave the channel at multiple times, with
>> >> various
>> >> people suggesting I get a life, or my insistent complaining as
>> >> pathetic.
>> >>
>> >> I apologise for an already long email (but as people in the channel
>> >> will
>> >> tell you, it's much shorter than reading the whole scrollback!).. but
>> >> here
>> >> are the things I wanted to request members' views and comments on:
>> >>
>> >> * Is it ok to stifle discussion by silencing one person when an
>> >> argument
>> >> seems to be happening in the channel, under the pretext of avoiding
>> >> drama?
>> >> ** This is also against the guidelines of when to ban/kick a person --
>> >> there was no flooding, nor were there any swear words or unappealing
>> >> language.
>> >>
>> >> * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for
>> >> discussion happening in a completely separate channel?
>> >> ** Especially when the discussion was exactly about the op
>> >> overreaching:
>> >> this seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Also, should an op's
>> >> personal bias towards words like blitzkrieg and dictator be allowed to
>> >> affect a user's ability to enter a channel?
>> >>
>> >> * What can be done to make #ubuntu-ops a more friendly place? The
>> >> discussion was very obviously hostile, and I was penalised for speaking
>> >> up
>> >> against the very two ops I had a problem with, and in general the
>> >> channel's
>> >> attitude was "write an email and gtfo, you're just repeating the same
>> >> things over and over". I don't understand the insistence to leave the
>> >> channel, nor the very obvious ganging up of the "ops vs. users" -- at
>> >> least
>> >> I felt that way from the get-go. After I left the channel, the logs
>> >> show
>> >> people suggesting each other to skip reading the scrollback and offer
>> >> sympathies for people who actually wanted to read it. If that can be
>> >> written off as humour, I would like to ask why the same kind of humour
>> >> leads to a ban in #ubuntu.
>> >> ** This is especially important, because #ubuntu-ops is the first forum
>> >> in
>> >> the appeals flow, and the experience there was extremely elitist and
>> >> hostile.
>> >>
>> >> * Why is it so bad to suggest an op be penalised? Why does doing that
>> >> instantly evoke allegations of being childish and immature (as opposed
>> >> to
>> >> people claiming they themselves are intelligent adults)? If an op can
>> >> ban
>> >> someone for a week in a completely unrelated channel for discussion in
>> >> another channel, why is it sacrilege that there should be at least some
>> >> kind of disciplinary action?
>> >>
>> >> * Continuing from the previous question, the general feeling I got is
>> >> that
>> >> the accountability of ops in general is not up to the usual Ubuntu
>> >> standards. Whereas packages in the repo are vetted in several different
>> >> ways, there seems to be no similar vetting for the whole ops flow.
>> >> People
>> >> claiming that "puppies don't die" if an op makes mistakes shows that
>> >> the
>> >> general feeling of responsibility seems low. Another way of thinking
>> >> about
>> >> this is if that puppies are not going to die anyway, why go out of your
>> >> way
>> >> to ban someone for a joke here and there?
>> >>
>> >> * Turning the tables onto myself, was I annoying? In short, yes. Could
>> >> I
>> >> have done things differently? Yes. Feedback on my behaviour is as much
>> >> appreciated as the discussion on the above bullet points.
>> >>
>> >> If you actually made it this far -- thank you! I am looking forward to
>> >> hearing other points of view, and as someone on IRC suggested, I will
>> >> try
>> >> my best to ensure that this goes better than the discussion on IRC was
>> >> :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Rohan
>> >>
>> >> [1]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/15/%23ubuntu-ops.html
>> >> [2]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/16/%23ubuntu-ops.html
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rohan Dhruva
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rohan Dhruva
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
>> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>

-- 
Rohan Dhruva