There have been two expulsion procedures started now. Do you think they were inapropriate or do you think they are a reflection of real problems in the project?
I don't think the options are mutually exclusive -- I tend to think expulsion was inappropriate, and the fact that it's being considered is a reflection of real problems in the project. I think it was inappropriate because it's too heavy-handed: expulsion should be a last resort, made only after other more moderate attempts have been made to ease the conflict and failed. I hope that over the next year we'll start exploring what ways work and don't, so that we do have some alternatives other than "ignore the problem" and "expel people until the problem stops".
I think the first expulsion procedure, against Andrew Suffield, was inappropriate. Since Sven Luther has threatened me with physical harm in the past, I don't feel unbiased enough to comment on whether his expulsion procedure is appropriate. However I would like to note that Sven Luther was quite vocally in support of all the other expulsion procedures that were initiated in the past. Is he getting his just desserts?
The whole concept of removing developers by acclamation is inappropriate but this is also a reflection of real problems in the project. The DPL has not been very visible in the last months and the project has sufferred from a lack of direction.
While the expulsion procedure was designed to kick people out of the project, it is extremly hard to do it with the current process since it requires a degree of unity within the project that we did not have in a long time.
It is however a tool to express in a convincing and somewhat threatening way "We really have a problem with the way you behave. Think about it. Hard."··
Unfortunatly this tool is rather coarse and undifferentiated. We can not yet say something like "We think you are a bully and would like you to change, since we value you anyway."··
On the other hand, those people it was used on so far really had a hard time to understand more sublime tones and criticism.··
To have SOME tool is however a good start.··
I think the debian community needs a way to communicate drastic disapproval. The current expulsion process can in reality do only that. IF we want to work with formal processes we need both ways to express the degree of our disapproval better and also an effective way to expell people from the project.··
It would be much better if our community managed to correct behaviouristic missfits in a more immediatly and private manner though, without bureaucratic means.
The two expulsion were intended to remove disruptive people from the project. It is important that Debian learns to handle those cases in order to keep the working climate healthy and be able to focus on the work. I think both candiates needed such a strong reminder that they should not cross the lines quite so often. ~
The expulsions are clearly a sign of problems in the project. I don't believe that they are necessarily inappropriate, but starting expulsion proceedings should be considered a last resort. The two expulsions that have been raised are both for social issues, which saddens me. I really wish that we could get on together without some of the friction that has characterised some recent discussions in the project. Maybe that makes me a "teletubby" in some people's eyes, but I have a strong belief in good, hard technical debate _without_ people falling into personal insults. Getting angry and rude to each other helps none of us...
Expulsion is a very harsh measure to take, or even to consider. The fact that the process has been initiated twice is already a bad sign on itself.
I don't think the existance of such procedure is a problem. In any large project, especially one with strict entrance measures, there should be a way to also decide to reverse the entrance of someone if someone's seriously harmful to the project, externally or internally. However, mediation should really be happening beforehand, preferably with the DPL involved, to see if the differences can be resolved via less extreme measures. It's an ultimate action.
About the two cases in question, I don't think we should judge on the rightfulness of starting the procedure, but rather, whether I think they should succeed. I was supportive of the first one, and don't know about the second one, I've been talking with the involved parties, and will decide later.