RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

[Matthew Lye]

As you can see later discussion doesn't necessarily mean you have to be
involved in the discussion as the person wronged, and the result can still
come about. OPs do need to make judgement calls, but in saying that we have
to admit that they will sometimes make the wrong one and we have to be able
to admit our mistakes.

You are entirely correct on the Ubuntu governance principle, however fair
and transparent means everything is put out in the open, but does not
necessarily have to be discussed in the open. Sometimes it is better to
have a discussion without the aggrieved party to resolve the situation then
come back and give the result. You should always be able to discuss the
result, and know what it is, but that does not mean you have to be involved
in that discussion other than to make your case which was clearly done in a
successful manner here.

I hope this does not color you opinion of this community and does not
negatively impact on your participation in this community. As a suggestion
you may wish to consider working your way towards joining the OPs team if
you are a regular in the IRC and influencing the way they do things from
within.



-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 12:35 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20140518/a814d7ca/attachment.html>