RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

Mon May 19 02:51:34 UTC 2014

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Lye <matthew.lye at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Good point Matthew -- I now see what you mean.

> 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.
>

Thank you, that is very kind of you to say! While I have been a
passive user, a lot about this whole email thread encourages me to be
a more active participant in the community. Cheers!

>
>
> -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
>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>

-- 
Rohan Dhruva