Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:54 PM Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:

> As most of you are probably aware by now, yesterday the Community Affairs
> Team (CAT) of TPF issued a lifetime ban to Matt Trout:
>
>
> https://news.perlfoundation.org/post/cat-transparency-repor-19-april-2021
>
> Today I talked to Stuart Mackintosh, the President of TPF, to share my
> concerns, both on the nature of the penalty, and the way it was done.
> Matt's behaviour does need addressing, but I don't think this was the right
> way. We had a good discussion, and have agreed to continue tomorrow, after
> he's had a chance to talk to others.
>
> Ricardo is a Board member of the TPF, so has recused himself from this
> issue. As you know, we are in the process of running a vote to fill the
> empty position on the PSC, so unfortunately I'm having to act alone on this.
>
> As Rik and I said last week, we want to start working on improving the
> discourse and culture of p5p. We believe that is the first step to
> improving things, but it needs to come from within.
>
> In the meantime, I ask that you bear with us, and think twice before
> commenting, either here or elsewhere. I hope to have an update soon.
>

It can't be overstated: thank you for your diligence.

-Dan

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 21:54:03 +0100
Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:

> As most of you are probably aware by now, yesterday the Community Affairs Team (CAT) of TPF issued a lifetime ban to Matt Trout:
>
> ?? ?https://news.perlfoundation.org/post/cat-transparency-repor-19-april-2021
>
> Today I talked to Stuart Mackintosh, the President of TPF, to share my concerns, both on the nature of the penalty, and the way it was done. Matt's behaviour does need addressing, but I don't think this was the right way. We had a good discussion, and have agreed to continue tomorrow, after he's had a chance to talk to others.
>
> Ricardo is a Board member of the TPF, so has recused himself from this issue. As you know, we are in the process of running a vote to fill the empty position on the PSC, so unfortunately I'm having to act alone on this.
>
> As Rik and I said last week, we want to start working on improving the discourse and culture of p5p. We believe that is the first step to improving things, but it needs to come from within.
>
> In the meantime, I ask that you bear with us, and think twice before commenting, either here or elsewhere. I hope to have an update soon.
>
> Neil

Here's a copy of my comment from reddit[1]:

It is interesting that this "transparency" report doesn't include any
details. It doesn't say who was investigated, it doesn't say what they
did, and it doesn't say how it was determined that they're guilty. Very
transparent.

It's also interesting that they suddenly decided to investigate an
incident that happened two years ago. It almost seems like they didn't
find anything warranting a ban in the original accusation, so they
started digging.

[1] - There was a thread about this on reddit, but the author has
removed it for some reason:
https://www.reddit.com/r/perl/comments/mu8c78/community_affairs_team_transparency_report/

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 17:14:50 -0400
Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote:

> > As Rik and I said last week, we want to start working on improving
> > the discourse and culture of p5p. We believe that is the first step
> > to improving things, but it needs to come from within.
> >
> > In the meantime, I ask that you bear with us, and think twice before
> > commenting, either here or elsewhere. I hope to have an update soon.
> >
>
> It can't be overstated: thank you for your diligence.

+1

--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans

leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/

On 2021-04-20 2:16 p.m., Tomasz Konojacki wrote:
> It is interesting that this "transparency" report doesn't include any
> details. It doesn't say who was investigated, it doesn't say what they
> did, and it doesn't say how it was determined that they're guilty. Very
> transparent.

While on one hand I agree with you, on the other hand...

I feel that being coy on naming any individual is exactly the right action.

You see, actually naming someone publicly can easily constitute libel and have
much more serious consequences for both the named and the namer, as it can be
much more easily be found and traced by anyone.

The way it was done, while vague, also can avoid a legal response for libel etc.

The banned person can still publicly declare they are that person.

That being said, its not a statement from TPF themselves, but the first p5p
email in this thread does explicitly name Matt Trout, and that is public.

-- Darren Duncan

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 22:54:03 +0200, Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:

> As most of you are probably aware by now, yesterday the Community Affairs Team (CAT) of TPF issued a lifetime ban to Matt Trout:
>
> https://news.perlfoundation.org/post/cat-transparency-repor-19-april-2021
>
> Today I talked to Stuart Mackintosh, the President of TPF, to share my concerns, both on the nature of the penalty, and the way it was done. Matt's behaviour does need addressing, but I don't think this was the right way. We had a good discussion, and have agreed to continue tomorrow, after he's had a chance to talk to others.
>
> Ricardo is a Board member of the TPF, so has recused himself from this issue. As you know, we are in the process of running a vote to fill the empty position on the PSC, so unfortunately I'm having to act alone on this.
>
> As Rik and I said last week, we want to start working on improving the discourse and culture of p5p. We believe that is the first step to improving things, but it needs to come from within.
>
> In the meantime, I ask that you bear with us, and think twice before commenting, either here or elsewhere. I hope to have an update soon.
>
> Neil

Thanks for getting involved in this, Neil. Your help is invaluable and by far the brightest light in this.

I do hope that priorities are set such that the accuracy of alleged behavior of Matt be drastically improved and aligned with reality rather quickly, given that a temporary offlining of the article (pending research) does not appear to be in the cards.

--
With regards,
Christian Walde

Further to what I said before...

While not naming names is good, I feel that there should be a lot more detail on
the alleged crime, where it is spelled out exactly what was said that was
considered to be a problem.

The main announcement can omit it but there should be a published supplement
that has it.

That way the community has the evidence upon which the verdict was reached,
including its seriousness, and not just the highly subjective interpretations.

-- Darren Duncan

On 2021-04-20 3:11 p.m., Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2021-04-20 2:16 p.m., Tomasz Konojacki wrote:
>> It is interesting that this "transparency" report doesn't include any
>> details. It doesn't say who was investigated, it doesn't say what they
>> did, and it doesn't say how it was determined that they're guilty. Very
>> transparent.
>
> While on one hand I agree with you, on the other hand...
>
> I feel that being coy on naming any individual is exactly the right action.
>
> You see, actually naming someone publicly can easily constitute libel and have
> much more serious consequences for both the named and the namer, as it can be
> much more easily be found and traced by anyone.
>
> The way it was done, while vague, also can avoid a legal response for libel etc.
>
> The banned person can still publicly declare they are that person.
>
> That being said, its not a statement from TPF themselves, but the first p5p
> email in this thread does explicitly name Matt Trout, and that is public.
>
> -- Darren Duncan

> In the meantime, I ask that you bear with us, and think twice before
commenting, either here or elsewhere. I hope to have an update soon.

I don't know the details, so I'll wait for the report.

2021?4?21?(?) 5:54 Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org>:

> As most of you are probably aware by now, yesterday the Community Affairs
> Team (CAT) of TPF issued a lifetime ban to Matt Trout:
>
>
> https://news.perlfoundation.org/post/cat-transparency-repor-19-april-2021
>
> Today I talked to Stuart Mackintosh, the President of TPF, to share my
> concerns, both on the nature of the penalty, and the way it was done.
> Matt's behaviour does need addressing, but I don't think this was the right
> way. We had a good discussion, and have agreed to continue tomorrow, after
> he's had a chance to talk to others.
>
> Ricardo is a Board member of the TPF, so has recused himself from this
> issue. As you know, we are in the process of running a vote to fill the
> empty position on the PSC, so unfortunately I'm having to act alone on this.
>
> As Rik and I said last week, we want to start working on improving the
> discourse and culture of p5p. We believe that is the first step to
> improving things, but it needs to come from within.
>
> In the meantime, I ask that you bear with us, and think twice before
> commenting, either here or elsewhere. I hope to have an update soon.
>
> Neil
>

huh. This is complete news to me. So Matt Trout is being shunned now. Is
Shlomi Fish still cool? I think I have occasionally gotten them confused.


--
"Lay off that whiskey, and let that cocaine be!" -- Johnny Cash

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:46:10 +0200, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:

> huh. This is complete news to me. So Matt Trout is being shunned now. Is
> Shlomi Fish still cool? I think I have occasionally gotten them confused.

he ain't being shunned and he will not be shunned. that's a fact.

--
With regards,
Christian Walde

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 02:28:48 +0200, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
> On 2021-04-20 3:11 p.m., Darren Duncan wrote:
>> On 2021-04-20 2:16 p.m., Tomasz Konojacki wrote:
>>> It is interesting that this "transparency" report doesn't include any
>>> details. It doesn't say who was investigated, it doesn't say what they
>>> did, and it doesn't say how it was determined that they're guilty. Very
>>> transparent.
>>
>> While on one hand I agree with you, on the other hand...
>>
>> I feel that being coy on naming any individual is exactly the right action.
>>
>> You see, actually naming someone publicly can easily constitute libel and have
>> much more serious consequences for both the named and the namer, as it can be
>> much more easily be found and traced by anyone.
>>
>> The way it was done, while vague, also can avoid a legal response for libel etc.
>>
>> The banned person can still publicly declare they are that person.
>>
>> That being said, its not a statement from TPF themselves, but the first p5p
>> email in this thread does explicitly name Matt Trout, and that is public.
>
> Further to what I said before...
>
> While not naming names is good, I feel that there should be a lot more detail on
> the alleged crime, where it is spelled out exactly what was said that was
> considered to be a problem.
>
> The main announcement can omit it but there should be a published supplement
> that has it.
>
> That way the community has the evidence upon which the verdict was reached,
> including its seriousness, and not just the highly subjective interpretations.

This is a double-edged sword.

In this particular a lot of people are asking about the specifics of the details found by CAT and their exact relation to the verdict, but primarily so in order to be able to counter them, given that a lot of people know they are incompatible with reality.

At the same time, due to the amount of detail that WAS given, the article was quickly being spread in a lot of places with mst's name (and occasionally mine) already attached, so the specific lack of detail failed to actually protect any privacy.

--
With regards,
Christian Walde

So when I said:
> In the meantime, I ask that you bear with us, and think twice before commenting, either here or elsewhere. I hope to have an update soon.

Maybe I should have said:

Please, no bike-shedding on this.


If you’re short of something to do, Todd has just released 5.33.9 for your testing pleasure ;-)

I just wanted to provide an update on this, as I know everyone is keen to see this resolved.

TPF/CAT have now had a chat with Matt, and had a chat with the 2nd individual, who has subsequently followed up with them to provide more information.

I had a second call with Stuart (TPF President) on Tuesday, and we’ve had email since then. I’ll be having another call with Stuart and Samantha (chair of CAT) tomorrow.

Thank you for your patience with this. And for not replying to this email :-)

Neil

On 2021/04/20 13:54, Neil Bowers wrote:
> As most of you are probably aware by now, yesterday the Community
> Affairs Team (CAT) of TPF issued a lifetime ban
---

I feel I need to ask/say -- when I read the SoC, I got the
impression that someone would be clearly corrected, and told
not to do 'X', and if there was a 2nd occurrence a 1 week ban,
and if still, then maybe a n-month or year ban,

But I don't recall it mentioning a lifetime ban "in perpetuity"
(someone spending too much time around lawyers perhaps?).

It seems like from what little I could tell that the consequence
of a lifetime ban had already been decided upon after a 1st
investigation. It sorta seemed like a few steps had been missed
there.

If that's not the case, fine, I wasn't informed of all the
details, but too often I've seen the equivalent of lynch-mobs
following up on witch-hunts over. I couldn't help but notice
the parallel in methods of those desiring to expel RMS from
FSF-related stuff, in perpetuity, for various reasons (maybe
some solid, while others maybe being a matter of perspective).

It just seems weird to have lifetime sentences/bans proposed by
"policing-groups" over issues that are politically sensitive
with some vocal groups looking for 'blood'.

Personally, I'm very much against lifetime anythings, since
all conditions change and all people, at least, have the possibility of
changing.

Perhaps individuals need to take a break apart from each
other...but life time sentences seem way overboard.

Linda A. W.

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 03:14:48PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> On 2021/04/20 13:54, Neil Bowers wrote:
> > As most of you are probably aware by now, yesterday the Community
> > Affairs Team (CAT) of TPF issued a lifetime ban
> ---
>
> I feel I need to ask/say -- when I read the SoC, I got the
> impression that someone would be clearly corrected, and told
> not to do 'X', and if there was a 2nd occurrence a 1 week ban,
> and if still, then maybe a n-month or year ban,

If you are referring to perlpolicy.pod, that standard of conduct
is only explicitly for perl5-porters and the perl5 github repository.
Other organizations may have their own policies for forums over which
they have some responsibility.

--
Andy Dougherty doughera@lafayette.edu

On 2021/04/22 17:28, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> If you are referring to perlpolicy.pod, that standard of conduct is
> only explicitly for perl5-porters and the perl5 github repository.
> Other organizations may have their own policies for forums over which they have some responsibility.
>

I wouldn't expect that unrelated organizations would be
publishing their police actions to p5p. OTOH, are you
suggesting that, p5p and perl development is
independent of the Perl Foundation? Or that TPF
has nothing to do with p5p "discourse and culture"?

The initial posting said that TPF was going to be working
on the discourse and culture of p5p. It sure seems to
me they are very much connected.

I wouldn't expect behavior enforcement policies to be that
far out of alignment. Certainly you can see that such a
disparity in penalties and enforcement would be confusing
to people.

I would question why the TPF would be publishing its police
actions to this list if they were entirely separate. I also
question why two different sets of policies would govern
this list and access to it.

Whether or not perlpolicy explicitly is for p5p and/or
p5p development, I'm not sure why the policies and actions
to deal with problems would not be substantially the same.