 So the idea of this both is to discuss the instruments of community instruments that we have today. We have a group of conducts since about a year, and we have a statement, what's it called again? Diversity statement. Diversity statement, thank you sir, about that. Sorry, I'm going to do it. We have a diversity statement since about two years. The idea here is to discuss what we have, see if it's working well. Maybe see if we need something more. Well, if there are issues that we have, general issues, we can talk about them. But I would like to stress that the idea is not to be talking about particular issues in much detail. I would prefer that we don't start pointing things at people, everybody can have a bad day, everybody can be badly tempered sometimes. And talking about how blah blah did something wrong three months ago is not going to help anyone. So I would like to stress that. Having said that, I know that when the Code of Conduct was voted to exist, there was a number of people who opposed it. And I must say it was something that surprised me. I would have expected some opposition, but the number was higher than I originally thought it would be. So just to start, is there anybody in the room who voted against the Code of Conduct? Let me phrase it that way. No, I was silent. I had voted for the Code of Conduct. But seeing what happened based on the Code of Conduct afterwards made me wish I wouldn't have voted for it. Well, that would have been my next question actually. But there's nobody in the room who voted against it if I get it right. Is that correct? Right. So my next question is indeed, would somebody in the room have voted differently with the things they know today? So it's you, somebody else? Nobody. Okay. Karsten, would you please explain then why you think that way? It gets a bit long, I'm sorry about that. Yeah, that's fine. For me, the Code of Conduct represents a role model, something to strive for. Which is fine and sensible in my eyes. Unfortunately, my impression, it needs to share that, but that is my impression. Some people view the Code of Conduct as a stick to beat up people they don't agree with. This is a very shortened, right, but there is the basic problem that things that are completely innocent for a person to say without bad intentions. Create the impression of being aggressive or abusing on people often coming from other cultural circles. I'm definitely not going to point fingers, we had several cases where somebody said something thinking of it being insulting to somebody, because it is a common colloquial expression where they come from, but people who read that felt severely insulted by it without it meant to be insulting, and things have been pushing up each other after that. And also there are things like somebody making, let's say, some sloppy expression which somebody else actually read as being physically threatened with physical violence. I haven't seen that, but yeah. I have to say that. You have to have that as well. You're talking about buses. I'm talking in Bang, other things also about buses. If you live in the same area as the person who used the bus, you clearly see that it was an innocent joke, but for the recipient it did not appear to be an innocent joke, but he actually felt threatened. And this is something that I find hardly to avoid in an international project, because there are just cultural differences. Often there are expressions which to a native speaker are completely innocent, but the expression a non-native speaker gets is different. And things start piling up then, and I'm not sure that it's something that can actually be avoided. Just one sentence. I'm actually a fan of the IATF principle. He conserves it in what you're sent and be liberal in what you accept. I wanted to maybe pull back a little bit from the idea that a code of conduct is going to avoid all conflict or all people providing effects. And propose that maybe one way to think about the code of conduct is... Can somebody take notes please? It's gobby, so you do gobby and you connect to... Is it gobby, or is it fine if you install that and then you connect to gobby.demi.org? I'll do it on the text file given to you there. That works, dude. Thank you for both of you for picking on us. So I was just going to say that we like to, as technical geeks and process geeks, we like to try to come up with ways that we can prevent all of the bad things that never happen. We're doing sort of defensive programming in our social environment. And I want to say that maybe sometimes it's worth thinking about the code of conduct not as a way to prevent something bad from happening. Because as you say, given the international nature of the project, that's probably impossible because we have all of these different people coming together. But instead, see the code of conduct as a way of saying, hey, sometimes bad things will happen because maybe someone says something unintentionally that turned out to offend or insult someone, and the code of conduct can be a way that we can come together and say, oh, I screwed up. Will you forgive me for screwing up? I'll try to not do it again because now I understand where you're coming from differently. So rather than seeing it as a way that we can, you know, beat people up for making a mistake, for doing something innocently that, you know, hurt somebody else's feelings or discourage others from participating, we can see it as a way to say, look, we're committed towards working together across these complicated international boundaries that we for sure can't get right all the time. And it's a way to say, oh, like we can take responsibility for the things that we didn't mean to do even and grow and work together in that sort of community way. So do not see it explicitly as, we're going to prevent all bad things from happening because I agree, we're going to fail. That's our goal. But instead say, how do we acknowledge when bad things happen and move forward in a way that builds the community instead of tearing it apart? I think, yeah. I agree. And I think, because I remember the case in question, and it was at the end of a lot of things going wrong in the discussion. And it's a bit like writing a program to handle the condition of the computer being on fire. And there's little that the program can do. And the problem is that the computer isn't fired. So, I mean, it's perfectly okay to talk about bus factor in normal daily conversation. I mean, what if I get hit by a bus? Who's going to maintain an end of your life? I don't think that's a problem with that. But in a normal conversation, I thought that they accept that people say, what if you get hit by a bus? But in a conversation where things are heated, where I thought they lost trust on the good intentions of the person in front of me and if somebody tells me what if you're hit by a bus, then I was like, go away. And please never be seen next to a bus in my presence. But the problem there is not the expression. It's that there is the loss of the trust that I have on that person to actually care for my existence on the planet is an addition rather than a problem. And at that point, I'm not sure how much code of conduct or something a behavior can do. And I don't really agree. I would be totally interested in figuring out how to take that as a point of growth. It's not a problem in a relationship to end up in a situation of conflict. But in a healthy relationship, it's nice that there's a way to say, oh, wow, we are in a situation of conflicts. How did we end up there? What was the actual problem? Rather than, oh, you said that, but you said that. Right, right. You understand? Yes, so I'm very new to Vivian at large. And I'm here because I'm helping to organize DECOM 2016 next year. Right. So I've been hit first with the problems in Olga, which I think is very much probably an intensification of the problems generally. Hopefully. Okay. A lot of this is happening. So one of, two questions, one is, it feels like there's some people, probably native speakers, who are more dominant. And the non-native speakers already feel marginalized. So it really links up to what Erica was saying. That it's not about the expressions, but that you're feeling marginalized as a point of departure. Right. Are the marginalized communities involved in all these things I've heard about as my first question? That's a good question. What was the question? If you feel you don't belong to a place, so marginalize me. And then someone writes something to help protect you, but you weren't involved in it. That's patronizing and useless. So I want to know if people were involved in creating the structures that shouldn't be taken. The code of conduct, I wrote an initial draft and it was then discussed over middle-lists and over above last, or two years ago during DECOM. I tried to be as inclusive as possible about that, but it was impossible to say you have to help me. I did try to listen to people who had disagreements. Sometimes I agreed with them, sometimes I didn't agree with them, but I think I did try to do that. I'm not sure if it actually happened, but that's maybe a good question. I don't know if that intense actually happened, if it actually happened, but I don't know if people who felt marginalized felt included. Maybe that's one of the reasons why more people voted against the code of conduct than I was hoping for. I don't know. Does anybody have an idea about that? Probably not. I can't remember whether I voted against it. I think I'd say... You can look this up if you want me to. Go ahead. I was teetering on the brink of doing so, but maybe I had a nice day and voted for it. You want to point to the camera? I'm going to do that. Was there a reason why you said that? The reason I would have voted against it is the same reason that I would have voted against there being a DPL if I voted in that, which is that I don't think that these structures really work in this sort of organization. But the optimism of the thing, I think that's why I'm saying it's because it could work, so let people play with it. But I think it's been quite often used as a weapon because we like in certain people, depending on their culture, interpreting suggestions as rules or Americans seem to think that everything needs to be written down in a constitution and then it's set in stone. English people tend to think that if you haven't actually been told not to with on-payment death, then it's probably allowed. And Germans, if there is a rule about it, there must be a little bit. So if you don't have any innocuous statement that you're going to try and put in a place that's a bit like a rulebook, then you're going to get three completely at odds interpretations of that at least. That's only three nations. Throw in the Japanese who never haven't got a word for none. So we have a problem. Just for the record, you voted one, two, three, which means you voted for it, so you didn't vote against it. I must have been feeling optimistic that day. I wanted to go back to the using as a stick or as weapon. I think it's in some part just very natural. People fall back to authorities. Sometimes malicious as a button, but more often innocuously because they just have, especially if they are not very sure and have problems to convince people, they crap everything they see as authority and throw it at the other side. It's not only a quote of conduct. For example, one often sees it with the list of fantasies, which is a useful tool to see what it is, but in the end you often see people just telling the other people what fantasies they, as you and they, just have told instead of arching what they do. I think it happens with everything and the quote of conduct will be used this way. If there wasn't the quote of conduct people would use something else there. And I think there is also the thing that if the other side uses something like this perceived as a button, it's too easy to see it as malicious on the other side that they use it as button. I think it might also help there to see it as that there is just an uncertainty, an angst in them that causes them to crap the next thing of authority. For example, in some heated discussions with some newcomers, we all knew sometimes they will throw in Debian free software guidelines numbers anyway. At which point you know he is just trying to make an argument. No, it's the emotions got over them. They cared about something and the emotions got over their head. I think with the other points where you see that people use it as a stick would also be more important to perceive this more or try to perceive this more that it is most likely more that they are also too much in emotion that they are even unsure. Maybe try to find a way to calm them down actually. There you go. I am at the quote of conduct now and I was thinking about the heated discussion like the system-d discussion I think the system-d thing itself is some fortune that we've heard the quote of conduct into existence in the midst of the system-d thing. Anyway, go ahead. I was trying to see in those heated discussions there are patterns that are probably not addressed in the quote of conduct. The quote of conduct is mostly about the average everyday conversation. When we are all nice and peaceful and fine this kind of says how to keep it nice and simple and fine and then things spiral out of control. I was thinking about the situations where things spiral out of control and one problem we have is that it's things in which the participants are uncomfortable being there but they see no alternative to being there. In other examples of interaction there are ways of getting out but no means no. I would like to discuss this with you but now it's not a good time for me. Let's bring it up after I have breakfast so I don't feel like bothering you. These kind of things are quite normal but in a mailing list we do not have the possibility of safe working out of saying I care about that but I don't feel comfortable discussing it in these terms. There's the general feeling that if I bail out because I'm uncomfortable then my voice will not be represented. At that point the rules of the conversation change and then things go weird. That could be abused by pleasantness. I care a lot. I get heated because I'm uncomfortable I'm out of my comfort zone I get defensive and everything and somebody else who can see that as an opportunity to be nice to me in a way that becomes abusive like oh but why are you so heated? You are getting so uncivilized about these things and suddenly they take a moral high that they kind of win by moral high ground but in a way that's twisted. So it's what you're saying is that we should maybe try to figure out a way of seeing if we can do something about that. The code of conduct doesn't seem to of ways out for when somebody is out of the comfort zone Is that something we should add to the code of conduct? I see this as a relationship I see most things as a relationship So when in trouble ask for a relationship counselling which is very, it could be from very basic things my first go-to thing is always like when you say that I feel this which can get nasty when the other person is being a booty because then it's not locking you but often I feel like that's often the other person goes oh my word I don't know and then it already resolved. So my question was is the code of conduct to general that everything just slips through the crack so I would definitely suggest adding very specific counselling things like try doing this try asking you know or try telling the other person if you say that I feel this you know it's something to do and it feels stupid when you look at it but it actually is very useful. Right I'm not sure I agree with Enrique about not not getting out or because I think that when you are in minority or underrepresented group and you are not feeling comfortable with language or with heated discussions and you also see that other people are using code of conduct to as a stick it might mean that some minorities will tend to draw out either from discussion or even from project because they are afraid that they will be misunderstood because of heated discussion because of their not being proficient enough with language and then they will be afraid that even though they mean well the code of conduct will be used as a stick against them so they will use and then they will Is that maybe something we should try to work on to use the code of conduct as a stick and you are not involved in the discussion it's maybe a good idea to step in and say hey please don't do that because that's not what it's for does that sound reasonable? I think that happened in the discussions where that was said as well Yes it did happen The code of conduct was used as a stick and people said it's not a stick and that didn't help resolving the use of the stick I was just wondering what I was going to say is that there's kind of two principles which seem contradictory so on one hand there's the code of conduct which can be read as don't do this, don't do that and on the other hand there's the kind of older principle of always seeing the good intent which is so important that it's actually right at the top of the code of conduct assuming good intent and so when you were talking about what you sent and being liberal with what you received I feel like those two principles one can be applied to one and the other so in terms of what you sent one can use the code of conduct to think about what they are saying to others but then when you are interpreting what you hear from other people then it's not to use the code of conduct but rather to use the principle of always assuming good intent so I feel like if there's a separation when you hear stuff don't use the code of conduct to police what other people are saying but only use it to police what you yourself are saying and using the principle of assuming good intent when you hear stuff from others so I feel like those two principles taken together they seem contradictory but when they're used in different contexts I think that they are both very useful and not using the code of conduct as a stick when you hear stuff that is probably the most productive way of using it I have a question a throat question what would be the best practice if I find myself in a condition of being unable to assume good intent so I'm in a situation in which I'm like even what I see I do not think I mean I have every rational reason to believe there is no good intent on the part of that person so I can't assume good intent because that means I get a little used what I've done in such situation in the past is just state that so I'd say I'm not sure you actually mean this very well anymore but assuming I'm wrong I'll answer this and if they then still go like whatever then I stole the discussion make my point clear at that point that's what I feel if they read that statement and go oh hang on that's not what I meant then they will come back and apologize and then to me everything's fine but I think if you clarify that what you just did to me I don't feel good about it in my experience people will usually either confirm that they meant it that way in which case to me the discussion is over or apologize and then we can move on and to me that works really well I'm not saying it will work for everyone but that's what I've done in the past Could there be a couple of personal stories about how to deal with such a thing and maybe a guideline camera? That's a good idea, anyone want to contribute? I have had similar experiences with voicing that I don't feel that there's good intentions so quite often it has turned out that there has been some some misunderstanding and also for me it has helped to often say like sometimes I've said instead of voicing that I don't feel there's good intentions it's kind of like pushed myself despite like emotionally healing and kind of feeling that I rationally have every right to believe that they don't have good intentions and gone like there's like tiny tiny tiny possibility there has been a misunderstanding so let's say that first and see what happens I guess that's the good assumed good intent part But at that point when I have pushed myself to do that I totally don't feel that I can assume good intentions it's like yeah I know lightning sometimes strikes 5 times in the same place so maybe this is one of those cases but I don't truly believe that I've been also wondering whether there has been any cases of people just saying that please can we continue this conversation the next day because many conversations they're not really that urgent that they need to be finished that day I have never never been in a situation on mailing list where I would have asked for that or seen it happen but this is getting sidetracked in this last I don't think this is getting sidetracked at all I think the code of conduct should include these or scenarios as examples to guide the behavior well the code of conduct doesn't currently because it was always my feeling that if you start listing things like don't do this and don't do that you get up, you end up with an enumeration and the light of a particular item might make some people feel that they can do that because it's not in the list so that's why I consciously avoided such a list but so I'm a dog don't do anything translated into do something apparently dogs don't think of the negative so you always need to use positive reinforcement so instead of saying don't do this so suggestion perhaps ask if a conversation can be continued the next day so there's no don't, there's only suggestions that could work I suppose so you know that better than I do go ahead, this is more like people so don't swear, don't do this is not helpful, especially as an awful lot of the time in tech communities we swear and we don't mean any offense by it that's just what we do but suggesting to people well if you're getting it's late at night, you're tired and this conversation is getting very heated suggests that you continue it in the morning that's giving somebody a tool that they can use which is not the same as an instruction at all it would be nice also if we saw this behavior model on the list more I mean like you said I don't know that I've ever seen a conversation on a mailing list where people have said can we have a time out for a day? I do this on IRC nowadays I haven't used it a lot but I used it when I was much more active when IRC I used it a lot I had this little script alias that would basically block everything from the person for 10 minutes and if the conversation got too personal I would say that can we calm down please can we take a step back and have a little break from this and if they would keep on continuing I would say that I will come back in 10 minutes to see if we can continue this and it worked super well usually when I came back after 10 minutes we would return to the same conversation in a much more rational way in the worst case I ended up using it three times in a row and then actually when I came back the other person was like sorry I was totally out of line can we now return to the topic but I don't know how a similar thing would work on a mailing list yeah what I was just saying there's a huge difference between a mailing list and IRC where IRC is more or less the life action I say something and I can expect a reply within seconds whereas on the mailing list the average response time is in the matter of hours so if you're like I don't feel very well now about answering this I am very upset about it if you sit for a day without asking the other person can I reply within a day I don't really expect that behavior so it doesn't really make a lot of difference it's fine but I think saying that you're uncomfortable might go some way that's true but that's separate from can we wait for an hour I just want to make a comment I've been in very hearing organizations that's bad and I just want to make a comment that I've been surprised being well versed in that I'm grumpy now I'm going to leave and people go with it so I think as a community you are very well already very so I think we just be encouraged by that thank you for that yeah I think what's a bit missing is the problem if there is a larger heated discussion what we have now is if one self is a bit too heated the problem is what do you do if in larger discussions with thousands and we had some in the last time where there are people that seem to be for months in a quite emotional stage where you can't come near a topic or they will claim you are a troll or not that or they are do you agree with that troll and things like this the question is what can one do with that's larger problems I'm not sure if we want to fix every problem and in fact to be fair it's 10 years ago now that's the Vancouver proposal happens where Jalek Komun as an observer as an anthropologist made the observation that through conflict we have aligned our values and we re-evaluated how Debian works it wasn't fun if you were in the midst of it and I was in the midst of it because as a portrait of the 16th cake board which was threatened with destruction at the time or not destruction but obsolescence it was very emotional but Debian the issue at the time decided that maybe we don't need to support all ports for all time and I wouldn't have said that at the time but I will say today that it was a good decision that we made when we made it so it wasn't fun but I'm thinking that it's not always necessary for conflict we should try to sometimes conflict is necessary we disagree with someone of course if it gets personal that's a different matter but conflicts may also get emotional and may also be difficult but we shouldn't go out of the way to avoid it at all if you see what I mean Yes, but I'm especially speaking about a large-scale discussion where it's obvious that a technical discussion is too hard because no one looks for technical discussion or if someone tries he is still shouted as a troll and go away That's a good question I'm not sure how to answer that one I'm wondering if anyone can think of examples where I know they're not as spectacular but where some kind of conflict has been resolved with everybody kind of happy or at least not very upset So there's been some suggestions about changes to the world and so some suggestions have been good So you mentioned basing it off of mailing lists if there have been actual examples of where things have actually worked can anyone think of the usual way in which I see things function correctly when there's a conflict and there's a resolution is when both of you somehow get the other side that's let's say one side is being pressured getting them to or asking them to try to empathize with your position and you empathize with their position in other words trying to understand each other when you come to a resolution that works rather than basically shouting no in both directions if that helps that is a very good proposition unfortunately it only works if both sides do it that's right and it's been my experience that it is a skill that unfortunately some people just don't have that's true so you can try it it's always going to work I've had this happen with people who are actually close to me in those situations it's rather difficult you don't actually want to yell at them you don't actually want to close the door so usually what I would try to do is to let them know that what they're saying is unacceptable or in some way actually confront them but not actually attack back with some force but yet not being overwhelming and trying to get to understand where I'm coming from why what they're doing is being a problem and usually lately that's really worked okay so I like your your point and it's been pointed out to me that if you want to solve a problem there's no point looking at where the problem is but where it isn't and figure out what are they doing right right so I think you're looking in the right direction unfortunately it's pretty hard to remember good examples because the bad ones are more memorable but I think we have at least one memorable good example that I've been which is the discussion about the diversity statement in which at the beginning everyone was like oh my god it's going to be so and the discussion was on for a month of excellent discussion and it came out with a wonderful what was the pattern in that I don't know possibly one thing is that the discussion had a person who took care of leading it and summarizing it somehow so it didn't just maybe that is a pattern and that person was quite respected yeah I think that is actually if there's something you really care about this the discussion that I started on a while back I think about facilitating external variables and then with a few males in there very long males with arguments much going sarcastic and ironic stuff like that which I could have interpreted as flame data but I decided not to and I think of course I can't tell what would have happened had I not interpreted it that way but I feel that by replying in a reasonable manner as possible the sarcasm and the sting got out of the discussion and that can help as well so it's always that's assuming good faith that's the part of assuming good faith it's also the part of ignoring the flame bait yeah that's just fine it's also the part of ignoring the flame bait and not giving into the temptation of replying to bad inventions with bad inventions which also helps I think I was thinking about communication in lists it's a bit than I have seen because for example there's no concept of let's discuss it against tomorrow because we start all the time zones and there's no such thing as it's a continuous day you also may read the meal let's continue tomorrow after you reply to the meal already because you were behind a couple of meals and I get there tomorrow and the discussion is as lifted towards something I need to read like 15 meals but an interesting thing is that splitting the level of the content not the topic of the conversation with the level of the meta communication so I wonder if that could be a suggestion of try to agree with what the other person the needs of the other person in the communication even if you don't agree with that point that I can make so if I say I think we shouldn't have a graphical installer people may disagree with me but if I say I would like to take some time off this discussion and come to you later with why I think the graphical installer shouldn't be there I have two things I'm saying I'm not in a condition of participating for this discussion with the best of my abilities at the moment but I care about that topic and one can take me seriously kind of agree with me on that bit and figure out so when would you have time to discuss this, would you like to write down a proposal for it and come back to me so that they can agree with that without agreeing with what I want and it's not obvious in such a discussion that one can agree with one but not the other it's like it is agreeing with you therefore everything you say in an email is wrong I have seen that kind of behavior and sometimes it's annoying I've also had games where I say I'm going to come back to this later and then it needs a month later to say this is why I think it doesn't work and because of the medium of email you can actually do that because you can always go back every batch which is difficult with things like RSC anyone else want to contribute something so a large part of the reason why I feel comfortable coming here is because you have a WS to state the code of conduct so I'm very glad that you do and please don't take it away that these tools need to be reformed somehow something else people have talked a lot about conversations getting heated it might be helpful to remember that when you're talking technical stuff and people are getting angry it's because they care right that's right I think that's a good note to end on because we're about to run out of time maybe we can get one more I have one proposal it might make sense to link to some text about Harvard's principles negotiation to the code of conduct because it has a lot of good advice about how to separate people from the problem that's right it's a system that is described by a book written by a couple of people who have been involved in international diplomatic negotiations where I'm sure emotions get much higher I've got a question with respect to your mark you said we agree on that the topic time or that they should be revised is that something that we agree on? I'm not sure if we do now the way that I've heard your words that they should be tools added to help implement this yes having a problem so you should definitely have a diversity statement you should definitely have a code of conduct that doesn't mean that they are carved into the surface of a granite they can be revised from time to time just to be clear I want to evaluate what we have I'm not necessarily sure myself we need to revise it if the result of the discussion is that we think we should revise it because I've been giving it out of this right now and I feel it should be someone else's I've got one proposal because I agree with you that we need to avoid that we can just do this do this, don't do this maybe it would sound nice to have something similar like there are the laws and then there are comments from judges from different lawyers so maybe do something like this code of conduct like the judge and then additional at the level to code of conduct when one could some advice it's maybe important to remember in that context that the rules that we decided on for the code of conduct is that while we cannot change the code of conduct except through GR the DPL does have the ability to add a further reading link at the bottom so if you think we should add something that is valuable in the context of the code of conduct it might be good to explore that option we haven't used it yet that doesn't mean we can't Daniel first so I just wanted to point out that we do have a culture within Debian of people writing documentation for other people to use to interpret the social contract and the DFSG and then write without being part of the contract and in many ways the things that people reference the most that have been written about those are things that someone has written on the side and then become incorporated by practice as a community so if we have people who you just give an example of a reference that we should link to and sorry I don't know your name I'm Bernal in Debian so you give an example of specific actions people can take to try to align their work with it it would be great to have those written down even if they're not directly linked to the code of conduct right now as a community we can point to them and say here's some examples of how to do this stuff right? and I think that a dating number is a brilliant idea because code of conduct are really by definition dry and boring right and then if you can link you can go to some things that feel like they resonate with you I think that's the wonder of it that's why it's possible to do that do you want to say something? I think there is in my experience a certain problem with not the code of conduct but the way that a complaint might be interpreted depending on the context and who the complaint is about in American law there's a concept of vexation where if you start suing everybody in your town eventually the code gets stopped they just throw your case out and say next time we see you unless it's someone having a go at you as long as it's not you suing people for having blue cars then it's okay but otherwise you're in jail so it's possible that if someone just complained about everybody in a discussion that doesn't agree with you then you don't have to take the last of those complaints seriously as if it's the first time they complain and I don't think we've got that this goes back to we don't have that wait a second I'm not saying wait a second viewers it's in the process it's not a wait a second thing where if someone complains for the first time that's a big thing to overcome the inertia of thinking well this is the best of the community everybody would hate me for complaining if you feel like you should complain you should complain and you've overcome quite a hurdle to do that the first time if it's your 17th complaint that day and your 20th I don't think that's ever happened but if that did happen so that the people the people that end up being interested in this have an interest in protecting the victims and that's completely right because if you're privileged then you're not going to spend all the time crawling through this crap that you might have to put up with from both sides because you're going to get attacked by both sides when you're trying to sort this stuff out you're not going to do it so the people that do it of course community but there is a point to which the victim isn't actually innovating they're just sort of machine going people with actual conduct I actually think that it's not unreasonable the rotation of the code of conduct of this part of the code of conduct to say that if you start abusing the code of conduct and spewing it at everyone you are in breach of this part that says that you should adhere to the relevant parts of conduct that you are no longer respecting other people and not assuming good faith and stuff like that of course it might be a bit of a weird interpretation I think it is I want to go to the second paragraph series of of that series of persistent offenders may be banned that's fine but I want to know is there a follow up process to understand why there are a series of persistent offenders because I'm assuming that these people already have a history in their being that they're not some random troll that's just coming in to spam you and if I can speak it well then those are easy I was one of those persistent offenders as I was going into a nervous breakdown and yes I was banned but I also had our head of department coming to me and had a private conversation with me to find out what was actually wrong and I think that solved the cause of the problem much better than just banning you would ever have done and so I think a bit of sympathy there would be you know from a public ministry ban that's a procedure that's fine but from the back in come in and find out why it's actually happening I think you can resolve a lot of things that's an interpersonal thing that I think we can I think it's part of the procedure in the cases I know about there's always been someone or several of someone who has tried to get in touch with the person private channels the trouble is that normally if they, you know people don't normally go completely potty on depends on their personality but people normally don't do it on deviant because of deviant they do it because they're going through a divorce or they've just been diagnosed with cancer or whatever and so they're stressed about all their ability to deal with stress they've taken up with that other thing and then someone says something that can they read the first sentence or post the person that sent it or they reading it misses the knot towards the end of the line and the rest of the post means something completely different and they respond with strange words and then that's the end of that we have actually very few cases of people being thrown out and those cases were quite spectacular and they had extensive normal channel website channel negotiation before possibly important of those cases is that there's been way too much attempts not to get to that where it couldn't be like please get out of the project and come back after a year after things may get better but in all of those cases in all of the cases in the past they could think of except one there would be no problem if the person came back and I think the general attitude would be oh let's get to know each other again I can think of two okay videos but yeah I think that is usually the case and that's why it also says temporary or permanently and why it doesn't go into detail on when we do one or the other because I don't think that makes sense in any kind of procedure but yeah it should be the exception anyway and I think currently which is good do we have anything more to say or to make an answer to that we've had at least two cases in which I know where people haven't been thrown out formally but where they have been heavily suggested to resign themselves in a form which made very clear that if they do not resign for themselves when moving them out we had one person being kicked out at that point but he was kicked out during that conflict and we had one person being banned and effectively kicked out from the analysts I'm also not going to name him but this was a personal conflict that's the two names I can think of there are other people who have been temporarily banned as well many more of those I'm sure there's been people who have been invited to leave right yeah I'm sure but the general thing is that we can't bring kick a person out we can revoke a position membership and say we don't think you are an official part of the project because you're not following we're not interacting contractively with the rest of the project or you are acting a way that contradicts the foundation documents of the project that you signed and you've shown no way of acknowledging this that's why accounts have been closed but even in the case of accounts being closed people are still some of the people are still contributing to that in their own way in other forms it could be that they could not contribute according to how their view works and maybe not together with people that are happy to work with them and that is working fine so I've thought so far we're kicking out the post kicking out path let's say does leave the open unless there's some spectacular growth planning happening we can reconsider things potentially right can I conclude for the minutes that you are genuinely happy with the post kicking out this interview well my gut feeling is that it's not so bad but I'm also in a position such that if people have a problem with that they probably wouldn't complain to me I think we can conclude on this we're almost out of time anyway we have time to move on to anything else I do encourage you if you feel we should take some action to maybe post something on that project wellness because this is really only very small subject we do have ways to add links to the growth conduct fairly easily so if you think that's a reasonable thing to do go ahead and try to get that on other things I don't think I should be the one to use anymore because I've already known this that for me to do everything but also on that thank you for being here for this discussion and thank you