Note: Paul is one of the founders of the Unison Language.
Dear Paul,
You closed Discussion #9 on the Unison GitHub forum. This prevented me from replying there, so now I'm writing here.
Here is a screenshot of the discussion:
Paul, your final comment was:
Hi crew, I’m going to go ahead and close out this discussion now. @xpe please don’t initiate another thread on this topic. I don’t feel like the discussion is continuing to surface new information, so let’s just agree to disagree. 🙂
I'm disappointed in your response. Here are my suggestions.
At the top of the discussion I wrote:
EDIT 2022-09-08: It is important to surface reasoning in the comments below, not just each individual's final preference. See also: #10.
The thread could have been left open to give time for others to discuss. It would have been better to let more voices weigh in.
Closing the issue and telling me to not discuss it further was unfair and out of proportion.
Are feelings (alone) valid justifications for a tough moderation decision?
No. It is better to use feelings combined with reflection and balancing of principles. These principles should be fair. The moderator should not reply out of proportion.
Why principles? They are broader and more uniform than one person's opinion at one point in time.
(Even better would be written principles combined with a transparent and accountable process.)
Of course individual feelings are valid and important.
However, don't forget: many people have strong feelings during discussions. The feeling of being bothered is not the only one. A feeling of having a discussion squashed is unpleasant, to say the least. Feelings vary in terms of their duration. For example, feelings of being respected (or the opposite) run much deeper than a temporary annoyance.
Sure, people get annoyed. Sometimes we have other priorities. Sometimes we aren't in the mood to engage. Sometimes we threaten to leave if the conversation doesn't go our way. All of these things were in play during the discussion.
Like I said in the thread, discomfort is not intrinsically bad. Discussions sometimes get a little tense. This can be a sign that there is something interesting under the surface. A quality discussion can help unpack that.
Overreacting to one person's discomfort is unwise. As temperatures rise, good leaders rise to the occassion. They listen, they teach, and they inspire. Paul, you took the easy way out.
Also, whether or not new information would surface is speculative.
This much is certain: closing the issue was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Last but not least: there is intrinsic value in letting people discuss and be heard.
Paul, your choice embodied certain values over others. It is hard to know your full underlying reasoning. Yur given explanation just wasn't convincing.
My overall takeaway of your decision can be summarized by one word: pitiful. As in "deserving or arousing pity."
Halting discussion and banning future discussion unfairly is not good leadership. The Unison Language has potential, but this kind of leadership does it no favors.
There is a continuum between a free for all and censorship. You've ventured too far towards the latter. Worse, your stated rationale is a thinly veiled way of appeasing the status quo as supported by your core team.
You, as one of the leaders here, are held to a certain standard.
I don't offer myself as a perfect example; of course I make mistakes. I'm a well-intentioned visitor to the Unison community, and I've shared a lot of my insight and perspective that I've learned along the way across many disciplines.
Put another way, I'm asking you to reflect on what accountability means to the Unison community. By making open source part of your company's plan, you must expect tension and disagreement. This is part of it. Diversity and passion lead to some disagreement. Turning off discussions should be reserved for extreme cases.
I also think you are embedded in a culture that has a deep misunderstanding of how to manage disagreement. It undervalues restraint and thoughfulness. It sometimes hides behind vapid, throwaway 'question-statements' such as "Can't we all just get along?".
Yes, we can get along, but we must not equate good argumentation with adversarialness. We can treat each other with respect while unpacking our points of view.
I've reflected on my words, and I'm comfortable with them. I realize they are direct and maybe even harsh. But I see some indicators that the culture of Unison is unhealthy -- I'm not going say toxic, because that word is too misunderstood.
Sincerely,
David
2022-09-09