1 |
After yesterday's Council meeting, I asked a question about just where |
2 |
the current Code of Conduct was, or the status of the posted version. I |
3 |
asked this in the context of (1) I was surprised to see that the posted |
4 |
version still talked about proctors, even though that project was |
5 |
disbanded about a year ago, and (2) I remembered several discussions in |
6 |
the previous council about amending CoC to explain its scope and how we |
7 |
actually *did* intend to enforce it. |
8 |
|
9 |
I thought this was a simple question the answer to which would be either |
10 |
(1) Actual (proposed for revision?) Code of Conduct is <here>, or (2) |
11 |
Council still has pending action on proposed revisions from last |
12 |
council. All of this is relevant, because this thread must apply to |
13 |
current (proposed for revision?) code of conduct; it does not fit well |
14 |
with a Code of Conduct enforced by proctors. And I don't think anyone |
15 |
can make much of an informed decision without some sort of Code of |
16 |
Conduct which reflects reality (such as we don't have proctors) to work |
17 |
from. |
18 |
|
19 |
The reaction to my question seemed to suggest I was visiting from some |
20 |
other universe or something, Hold over Council member(s) did not seem to |
21 |
recall what if anything old council had done with Code of Conduct, and |
22 |
everything here should be read in context of posted Code of Conduct. |
23 |
Now, that can't be correct because it erases several months of |
24 |
discussion and decisions from the history of previous council. |
25 |
|
26 |
Anyway, people asked me to post my questions here, so that is what I am |
27 |
doing. Everything needs to be read in the context of the summaries of |
28 |
the Council meetings from 20071011 -- 20080214 (five months). Also, |
29 |
there seem to be two proposals for Code of Conduct revision, both from |
30 |
Donnie. The first is discussed in a thread here: |
31 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/82 |
32 |
In fact, at the time I supported that idea enthusiastically, but others |
33 |
pointed out difficulties. |
34 |
|
35 |
Eventually, this was revised here: |
36 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_ba125098c929ea31f34051dfb009d436.xml |
37 |
advantage that it did not require any approval at all, but it most |
38 |
certainly *did* imply revisions to the Code of Conduct itself, because |
39 |
effectively it stripped out any authority from the (non-existent) |
40 |
proctors and instead identify a small group of people who would take |
41 |
aside CoC violators (in private) and suggest they quit doing whatever |
42 |
they were doing wrong. For the record here, my response to this was: |
43 |
|
44 |
[quote] |
45 |
'Nice idea and worth a try. I have one concern. Since we are talking |
46 |
CoC here, I'd like to emphasise that "assholeness" should be determined |
47 |
within the guidelines of the CoC. Not by some person's own conception |
48 |
of "assholeness" --- I'd hate to see a flame war about just who is being |
49 |
the asshole in any particular instance.' |
50 |
[/quote] |
51 |
|
52 |
As best as I can tell, this proposal was *APPROVED*, and at 20080214, was left like this: |
53 |
|
54 |
================================ |
55 |
Code of Conduct enforcement |
56 |
--------------------------- |
57 |
Promote individual devs responding to people who are being jerks. |
58 |
Keep responses private, unless that person gets out of hand. |
59 |
|
60 |
dberkholz will get things going. |
61 |
To help or get advice, contact him. |
62 |
=================================== |
63 |
|
64 |
I think the final intent was that Council expected the Code of Conduct |
65 |
to be pretty much self-enforcing, driven by members of the community who |
66 |
cared enough to take violators aside and calm them down, beat them over |
67 |
the head, or whatever. |
68 |
|
69 |
So, my question remains: Did this resolution ever make it into a |
70 |
revision of the Code of Conduct or not. I thought it did, but can't |
71 |
find it. If it didn't, it probably should, and this entire discussion |
72 |
should be interpreted with that intent. |
73 |
|
74 |
In passing, I'll note something else. The underlying assumption of the |
75 |
entire Code of Conduct threads over five months last year was that: |
76 |
|
77 |
[quote from Donnie] |
78 |
|
79 |
A primary focus of CoC enforcement is deterrence from continued |
80 |
violation, so permanent action is unnecessary. Thus, what seems |
81 |
necessary is a way to take rapid, private, temporary action. |
82 |
|
83 |
[/quote from Donnie] |
84 |
|
85 |
The focus here was on errant developers, but by validating userrel's role in |
86 |
all of this, we know it now explicitly applies to the entire community. |
87 |
However, the underlying "immediate and temporary" assumptions still apply, |
88 |
I would think. Anything else would be a fundamental change as best as I |
89 |
can tell, and discussion should be framed and clearly understood on that |
90 |
context. |
91 |
|
92 |
I guess the answer to my question is that Council did approve changes to the Code |
93 |
of Conduct, but if they ever got incorporated into the official document, I |
94 |
can't find it. |
95 |
|
96 |
Regards, |
97 |
Ferris |
98 |
|
99 |
-- |
100 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
101 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |