Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:12:48
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal by Donnie Berkholz
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 04:05 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference, > but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long, > sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a > majority of people prepared for it by the meeting. > > I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so > you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking. > > Thanks, > Donnie
Referencing original proposal as circulated. This is a big step forward, and if we had a binary situation: either accept it as written or go back to the drawing board, I'd prefer to accept. Thus my comments which follow are best viewed as requests for clarification or of personal inclination. 1. Are 3 (or 5) people sufficient to ensure quick reactions to mailing list questions or IRC? This is minor, and starting with 3 to put the process in place and tune it as needed probably works. My concern is longer term. Speaking for myself, for instance, I almost never see problems on IRC until they are long over, and I suspect this is the case for most people. Similarly (usually) with mail. And I don't think we want a corps of full-time monitors. By the way, I don't have an answer to my question, but my guess is that starting with 3 growing to 5 in practice is probably about right. 2. As to forums, I've never seen that the forum moderators need any help with what they are doing. Actually, in a sense I think the forums are kind of a model for what you are proposing. 3. I note that most actions are very short term, so if things are working as they should, the lead (or council) will seldom or never get involved in the day to day process. I think this is a huge plus for your proposal! 4. I learned from talking to some of the proctors that they did generally work in private. It would be useful perhaps to see how closely the bulk of what they did conformed to your proposal (as opposed to how previous Council perceived them). And of course where it diverged. (I am addressing the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "implementation" section here, and just raising a question.) 5. Do you perceive the enforcement group as an arm of the Council rather than as a group of its own? Previously, the Council did not seem to know what to do when the Proctors' views of Code of Conduct and Councils' *individual* views of Code of Conduct seemed to diverge. This led to the unusual step of simply eliminating the Proctors. I rather doubt that you would find much enthusiasm for working in such an environment again. So, what you are proposing probably works for any given Council (assuming continuing commitment from council to council). I think my concern is addressed to (a) continuing commitment; (b) consistency and continuity. The Gentoo community need to understand the rules so that they become a part of our culture, so that even with annual assessment, we should expect evolution rather than catastrophe. (This was all a bit muddled. That's sure indication that so are my thoughts, so take it for what it's worth.) 6. "Developers can be members of both [Council and Code of Conduct team]." This is the one sentence I take exception to. It's better to work for more community involvement rather than allow concentration resulting in personnel wearing multiple hats. 7. Off the top of my head, why not allow (or require) that one member of the team be a user but not a developer? Userrel, all, comments? Very nice work, Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal Wernfried Haas <amne@g.o>