[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Ban Carl Eugen Hoyos

[Paul B Mahol]

On 6/13/16, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
> Am 13.06.16 um 10:23 schrieb Paul B Mahol:
>> On 6/13/16, Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/13/16, Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/16, Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/16, Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As requested in the IRC meeting I hereby request for the
>>>>>> voting committee to begin voting on whatever to ban Carl
>>>>>> Eugen Hoyos from mailing list, trac and IRC for 4 months,
>>>>>> starting after the voting has finished.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't remember such thing to have been requested on the IRC meeting.
>>>>> Would you kindly quote the relevant parts of the logs?
>>>>
>>>> It was requested to act because of Carl misbehaviour.
>>>> Logs are available on net.
>>>
>>> I was on the meeting and I checked the published logs
>>> before sending my first mail.
>>> That's why I requested that you QUOTE the relevant part.
>>>
>>> Let me be blunt. Nobody have requested Carl to be banned,
>>> and definitely not from ML, trac, IRC for 4 months.
>>>
>>> Feel free to prove me wrong, by providing the quotes I requested.
>>
>> Nobody requested explicitly that they want to ban Carl for 4 months,
>> but they all want that his behaviour is punished.
>
> "all"?
>
>
>>>>> Also, I would like to know on what grounds and
>>>>> on what charges you request that punishment.
>>>>
>>>> On grounds that he was badmouthing others.
>>>
>>> That's way too vague...
>>>
>>> 1. I'd like to see links and quotes of him doing the things you accuse
>>> him
>>> of.
>>
>> It was all private. The last one about Derek, which was public, is just
>> top of
>> iceberg.
>
> "all private"? Private behaviour, no matter how much we dislike it, can
> hardly
> be a subject here. Even if it correlates to other devs and the FFmpeg
> development process, it would be the task of the offended person to publish
> it
> and ask for actions if it really exceeds a behaviour that can not be
> privately
> ignored by the offended.
>
>
>>> 2. I'd like to know why we have to ban him for 4 months exactly? Why
>>> ban him from ML, IRC, Trac, but not git?
>>
>> Then we will ban him from git too.
>>
>>> How did you determined that this punishment is the one that is most
>>> fitting the crimes he has done?
>>
>> By careful examination.
>
> Just a phrase. There is no possible examination if it's "all private". And
> there
> is no careful determination possible for a punishment because we don't have
> mappings for misbehavior. Thus, what you propose is just your personal
> arbitrary
> opinion of a suitable punishment. Aside that applying any part of the CoC to
> misbehavior of the past is inappropriate IMHO.
>
>
>>> I can give you a lot of repeated incidents where people have badmouthed
>>> Carl.
>>> Should we ban them all in a similar way? Months and years after the fact?
>>
>> They were not first to do that, they got provoked.
>
> It is never this easy. Even if being provoked, reaction in an unsuitable
> manner
> are not justified (just human).
>
>
>>> Also, If we are going to punish somebody, there should be a due
>>> process before that.
>>> Witch hunts are nasty things.
>>>
>>>> Many devs requested punishment.
>>> Did they?
>>
>> Yes, on IRC meeting many requested something about him to be done.
>
> Above you said "all".
>
>
>>> Many people wanted breaking CoC to have consequences.
>>> But I do not remember anybody requesting Carl to be banned for 4 months.
>>
>> 4 months is very realistic, symbolic amount would not be good for project.
>
> As long as you don't explain what makes 4 months realistic, it is just your
> subjective assessment.
>
>
>>> Feel free to prove me wrong, with quotes.
>>
>> If you want quotes, ask Carl to give you all his private emails.
>
> Do you even realize what you are saying? The accused person has to prove
> anything? Paul, honestly, this sentence should stay in the 18th century and
> you
> should really reflect your ambitions about all this.
>
> Many people dislike CE's behavior and that's just fine - they are free to
> feel
> that way. However, everyone should keep proportionality in mind and accuse
> someone for _specific_ misbehavior conducted after the CoC has been adopted
> and
> not call for generalized, inappropriate and severe punishment.

Looks like you prefer to loose valuable developers instead of punishing
bad behaviour, so be it.